BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Middle Level Bill

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Wednesday 28 February at Four o’clock (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral
Answers to
Questions

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Turkey (Afrin)

Grahame Morris: Whether he has made representations to his Turkish counterpart on that country’s operation in Afrin.

Alan Duncan: The Foreign Secretary has spoken to Turkish Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu about the operation in Afrin. We have called for de-escalation for the protection of civilians, while recognising Turkey’s legitimate interest in the security of its borders. It remains in our shared interests to focus on achieving a political settlement in Syria.

Grahame Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the Kurdish-led Administration in Afrin has built a secular, democratic system that has worked collaboratively with the international community to defeat Daesh, most recently in Raqqa? Does he accept that the international community owes a debt of honour to the Kurds? Will he step up efforts to stop the bloodshed in and around Afrin?

Alan Duncan: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but we must also recognise the legitimate security interests of Syria. They consider that, having launched Operation Olive Branch in January, it is in response to attacks from the Afrin area, and they believe that they are in compliance with proper UN standards.[Official Report, 21 February 2018, Vol. 636, c. 4MC.]

Julian Lewis: When we make representations to our Turkish NATO allies, can we also make representations on behalf of the tens of thousands of journalists and others who have been locked up by the Turkish Government?

Alan Duncan: I can assure my right hon. Friend that we do, and we do so in all our meetings at all levels with our Turkish counterparts.

Joan Ryan: Do the Government agree that the Democratic Union party—the PYD—and the People’s Protection Units—the YPG—should be included in the Geneva process to end Syria’s war and discuss the country’s future?

Alan Duncan: That is primarily a question on Syria, rather than Turkey. However, I would point out to the hon. Lady that the PKK is a proscribed organisation in the UK, whereas the organisations to which she principally refers are not and so can be spoken to.

Theresa Villiers: Will the Minister make representations to the Turkish Foreign Minister to ask the Turkish navy to cease obstructing vessels seeking to extract hydrocarbons in the eastern Mediterranean?

Alan Duncan: I understand the issue to which my right hon. Friend refers, which is the drilling for oil and gas on the edge of Cyprus. We are assessing what has been reported over the past day or so about what exactly is happening in that area.

Emily Thornberry: We on this side of the House unequivocally condemn Turkey for its disgraceful assault on Afrin. We are especially appalled that it has enlisted in its army the very jihadist militias that the Kurdish forces have worked so hard to drive out of northern Syria. If the Foreign Secretary is unable to join me today in condemning Turkey, will the Minister of State at least explain why he believes that “Turkey’s legitimate interest in the security of its borders” gives it the right to brutally attack the innocent Kurdish community in Afrin?

Alan Duncan: I do not think it is exactly as the right hon. Lady says. We need to recognise Turkey’s legitimate interests. Of course we condemn any kind of attacks on civilians and we wish to see a de-escalation of that, but the legitimate rights of Turkey should be recognised.

Emily Thornberry: The truth is that the Turkish assault is part of a broader pattern, where too many foreign parties engaged in the Syrian civil war are now acting just like the Assad regime itself—without any regard for international law. When the Government obtained a military mandate for joining the coalition action in Syria, David Cameron guaranteed in this House that it was “exclusively” to combat the threat from Daesh. Given that that threat is now almost totally gone, will the Minister of State please spell out the coalition’s current military objectives in Syria? When will he seek a mandate for them from this House?

Alan Duncan: I find the right hon. Lady’s analysis extremely bizarre, particularly as the YPG has been reported as wishing to ally itself with the Assad regime in order to fight back against Turkey’s activity.

Philip Hollobone: Further to that point, what is the Minister’s assessment of the veracity of reports that the Assad regime and the Kurds are joining forces militarily to resist the Turkish incursion?

Alan Duncan: That is exactly the issue to which I have just referred. We are assessing it, and I am sure that there will be further reports later, but it is too early to say exactly what may be happening.

Girls’ Education

David Davies: What steps his Department is taking to support the delivery of girls’ education throughout the world.

Craig Tracey: What steps his Department is taking to support the delivery of girls’ education throughout the world.

Harriett Baldwin: Girls’ education is a moral imperative. Women and girls have the right to be educated, equal, empowered and safe.  This is one of the Foreign Secretary’s top priorities, and he has instructed his officials to put girls’ education at the heart of their work.

David Davies: Given the appalling revelations about some employees in Oxfam and the subsequent attempts to cover that up, could the Minister assure us that any organisation that is asked to deliver education for girls’ programmes anywhere in the world by the British Government is fit for purpose?

Harriett Baldwin: I share my hon. Friend’s assessment that this is an utterly despicable example. I hope he agrees that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has shown real leadership by writing to all the organisations with which we contract to ensure that safeguarding levels are raised. I believe that you have allowed her to make a statement on this subject later this afternoon, Mr Speaker.

Craig Tracey: During the Foreign Secretary’s recent trip, what discussions did he have with Burma, Thailand and Bangladesh on the Government’s policy on the education of women and girls?

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary champions this issue at every opportunity, including the opportunity that my hon. Friend mentioned. He will be aware that not only has my right hon. Friend shown tremendous leadership on this issue, but he has appointed a special envoy for gender equality and has really put this work at the heart of the diplomatic network.

Rachael Maskell: Khwendo Kor provides education at the north-west frontier province of Pakistan, an incredibly dangerous environment for women and girls. UK Friends of Khwendo Kor tries to bring people over to the UK to provide human rights support, but the Home Office often blocks them. What discussion has the Minister had with the Home Office to help this situation?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the important work that a range of different organisations do, often in partnership with us. If she has specific examples on which she would like me to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would be delighted to receive her correspondence.

John Cryer: Further to the previous question, what discussions has the Minister had with the Government of Pakistan on the education of girls in that country? Can she tell the House what proportion of UK aid to Pakistan goes towards the education of women and young girls?

Harriett Baldwin: It is certainly very significant. Last month, I had the pleasure of meeting two very impressive education Ministers from different parts of Pakistan. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, education is quite devolved across different parts of Pakistan. As for the specific statistics that he wishes me to provide, I will follow that up in a letter to him.

David Evennett: I welcome the work that my hon. Friend and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are doing in this field, but does she agree that in a place such as Africa, a huge amount more needs to be done?

Harriett Baldwin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a huge amount to be done. Something like 136 million girls around the world are not in education. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, this is truly the Swiss army knife of development, because it works in so many different ways. It helps to resolve issues of conflict and is also important to advance global prosperity.

Alison Thewliss: CNN recently reported the story of 12-year-old Halima from Yemen, who wants to become a doctor, but whose father is being forced to make the choice to marry her off to make ends meet. He will receive £2,000 as a dowry for marrying off his daughter. What will the Minister do to prevent conflict in Yemen so that young women there can fulfil their potential?

Harriett Baldwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight a particular example that illustrates the challenges faced by girls around the world. The UK Government have demonstrated significant leadership on this issue as a way of progressing peace and development around the world, and are urging all parties to the conflict in Yemen to make a political solution.

New Channel Link

Patrick Grady: Whether he has had discussions with his French counterpart on the construction of a new fixed link across the channel.

Boris Johnson: At the conclusion of the highly successful Anglo-French summit, it was indeed agreed that a committee of wise people, or “comité des sages”, should be established to look at reviving the great tradition of UK-France collaboration in such matters as security, defence, space, genomics, infrastructure, and indeed, infrastructure projects, such as the idea of a new connection between our two countries—an idea, I can tell the House, that was warmly welcomed both by my counterpart, Mr Jean-Yves Le Drian, and by President Macron himself.

Patrick Grady: I note that the Foreign Secretary did not say whether he would be on this committee of wise people. He will be aware of the warning from Maritime UK and many others that the channel ports face gridlock if a transition arrangement for Brexit is not put in place urgently. What is the point of a 20-mile bridge if there is going to be a 20-mile queue waiting to get on to it?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on crowbarring Brexit into that question. Most people appreciate that the existing channel tunnel is likely, at the current rate, to be full within the next seven years, which is a very short time in the lifetime of a great infrastructure project. It is a curiosity that two of the most powerful economies in the world, separated by  barely 21 miles of water, are connected by only one railway line. I think that is a matter for legitimate reflection by our two countries on the way forward.

Richard Graham: With regard to links across the channel with France and many other European partners, yesterday the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence from Michel Barnier, Guy Verhofstadt and many others, and it is absolutely clear that the deep partnership we are seeking with the European Union will be a unique and specific agreement that will benefit those on both sides of the channel enormously. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that that should be the outcome of the talks that will be starting again soon?

John Bercow: Order. On the subject of crowbarring, or indeed shoehorning, I remind the Foreign Secretary—I am sure that he requires no reminding—that the question is not about Brexit; it is about a fixed link across the channel. That is the pertinent matter upon which he will focus.

Boris Johnson: If I may say so, I think that my hon. Friend has hit upon the notion of a metaphorical fixed link: a great, swollen, throbbing umbilicus of trade—I will not say which way it is going—with each side mutually nourishing the other. I very much approve of the note of optimism that he strikes.

Jo Swinson: I am generally in favour of building bridges rather than walls, but may I urge the Foreign Secretary, instead of indulging in fantasy engineering projects, to focus on the important work, which he just mentioned, of building metaphorical bridges with nations that share our values, such as France and other European neighbours, in order to prevent Brexit Britain from becoming isolated and increasingly reliant for trade and influence on regimes that have dubious human rights records?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but she will recognise that we are beefing up our diplomatic representation in the EU and seizing the opportunity to build new links and revive old partnerships around the world. Nobody could have been more eloquent about our unconditional commitment to our friends and partners in the EU than the Prime Minister was in Munich last week.

James Duddridge: In 1971, when French and English counterparts starting talking about the channel tunnel, they were mocked. Can we have more vision and less mockery about ideas on how we can take forward our future relationships?

Boris Johnson: I remind those Opposition Members who have been jeering from a sedentary position about great infrastructure projects that it has invariably been Conservative Administrations who have come forward with these schemes. It was the Conservatives who revived the east end of London with the Canary Wharf project, and it was Margaret Thatcher who green-lighted the first channel tunnel.

Khalid Mahmood: It is estimated that the Foreign Secretary’s channel bridge could be built at a cost of £120 billion. He wants  to build bridges, but at the same time he is pushing for a hard Brexit, pushing us further away from the European Union. Does he think that that money could instead be better spent over the next six and a half years by giving the national health service £350 million a week? Which would he prefer?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is possibly too young to remember, but when the first channel tunnel was commissioned it was the vision of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, that it should be entirely privately financed, and there is no reason why we should not have the same ambition this time. As for his point about the Brexit dividend, as the Prime Minister has herself said, there will unquestionably be substantial sums of money available for spending in this country on the priorities of the British people, including the NHS. If Labour Members are opposed to that, let them stand up and say so now.

Stephen Gethins: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us about any economic analysis that he has had done on the infrastructure that he is talking about, and tell us where it sits in relation to the Government’s new Mad Max dystopian barometer?

Boris Johnson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I defer the economic analysis to the comité—the committee of wise people. However, the first channel tunnel will be full within the next few years, by the middle of the next decade. I think it incumbent on us to be responsible enough to reflect on the future development of our economies, and I look forward to the committee’s findings.

Stephen Gethins: Does the Foreign Secretary agree with me about the importance of evidence from impartial civil servants? Does he agree with me that evidence in terms of our relationship with France and the rest of Europe is important, and, in that context, does he agree with the former First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), about the
“problem of politicians who won’t accept evidence”?

Boris Johnson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have nothing but admiration for the hard work and dedication of the Whitehall civil servants who are preparing the Brexit negotiations. Believe me, they are doing a superb job.

Illegal Wildlife Trade

Alister Jack: What steps his Department is taking to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: What steps his Department is taking to tackle the illegal wildlife trade.

Boris Johnson: The United Kingdom will host an ambitious, high-level illegal wildlife trade conference in London in October this year. I believe that the ambition to crack down on the illegal wildlife trade is shared by the entire British people.

Alister Jack: At that conference, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of efforts to stamp out the illegal trade in ivory?

Boris Johnson: As my hon. Friend will know, we are nearing the conclusion of a consultation about a total ban on ivory, which I think many people in the House and in the country would agree is devoutly to be wished for. We will see where we get to, but I think my hon. Friend can count on us once again to be in the lead, and I believe that the October summit will produce some very substantive conclusions on saving elephants.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: During his recent trip to south-east Asia, what discussions did my right hon. Friend have with palm oil-producing countries about the illegal wildlife trade and deforestation?

Boris Johnson: I am acutely aware of the problems caused by palm oil cultivation. We are in urgent dialogue with our partners to discourage them from deforestation and the consequent loss of species.

Catherine West: China has come a long way in the ivory trade discussions, but what discussions is the team having with Vietnam and some of the other countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations?

Boris Johnson: Only the other day, I had discussions with Thailand. We absolutely appreciate the importance of not simply diverting the flow of ivory from China to other countries in south-east Asia.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House, and the people of the United Kingdom, that an international approach is being taken to ensure that nations across the developed globe take a similar position, so that we can ostracise and alienate those who are engaged in this sort of trade?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why we are hosting a global summit, and the participation rates are already very high indeed.

Iraqi Elections

Jack Lopresti: Whether the Government plan to send observers to the elections in Iraq scheduled for May 2018.

Robert Halfon: What steps the Government are taking to encourage dialogue between the Kurdistan Regional Government and the Government of Iraq.

Alistair Burt: I was able to meet with both Prime Minister Abadi and Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani in Munich at the weekend, when on behalf of the UK I encouraged the continuing dialogue recently begun between them individually, which is essential to the long-term stability of Iraq. We have no current plans for observers from the UK to attend May’s elections, but we are working with others to ensure efficient and effective monitoring.

Jack Lopresti: Will British diplomats study the Federal Government’s progress in implementing the Iraqi constitution, especially in disputed areas like Kirkuk, where there have been reports of murder, looting and expropriation, and where the autonomy promised under the Iraqi constitution is under threat?

Alistair Burt: There is no doubt that both sides see the opportunity under the constitution to ensure that the relationships between them are strong and good. There has been a great deal of conciliation in an area that could be one of much greater conflict, and the UK is encouraging that dialogue to minimise the risk of the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend accept the Foreign Affairs Committee’s observation that many Kurds feel imprisoned in a country they see as not implementing the commitment to equality for them? Does he also agree that the five month-long blockade of international flights to and from Kurdistan has been a needless outrage, separating families, obstructing medical treatment and impairing the economy, and will he encourage Baghdad to lift the blockade?

Alistair Burt: The issue of the airport is foremost in the discussions between the respective Prime Ministers, and there is a recognition that if the arrangements for the airport could be changed, that would make a difference. It is essential for the future of a Kurdish region in Iraq that it is stable and secure and that rights are honoured on both sides, and that the constitution is seen to be effective.

Ann Clwyd: I have just returned from Iraq, and I monitored the first ever elections in Iraq. Elections are important, and the Iraqis in particular would like more technical assistance and advice. They are doing a good job there at the moment, but they need more UK help to bring about reconciliation and progress between the various factions.

Alistair Burt: I thank the right hon. Lady for her steadfast support of Iraq over many years. Indeed, she and colleagues from the Inter-Parliamentary Union were over there to talk to those in the Iraqi Parliament about governance issues, and the contribution she has made over many years is immensely valuable. Of course, technical assistance from the UK to assist in this process is part of the support we provide, and I will certainly be looking into what more we can do in relation to the elections.

Barry Sheerman: I know the Minister to be a fair-minded man, so when any of these negotiations are taking place, will he balance loyalty as allies of the Kurdish people over many long years with the track record of President Erdoğan?

Alistair Burt: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas referred to the Turkish issue earlier. Certainly there is concern about what is happening on the border and a recognition that the needs of the Kurdish peoples, who are represented by a number of different parties, should be recognised. The UK is always conscious of the relationship we have with those peoples, and with the people of Iraq.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend is a noted expert on the region, and it is a pleasure to see him representing Her Majesty’s Government in the middle east, but can he bring a little clarity, which the FAC asked for, on the difference between the YPG and the PKK? We received evidence after evidence that there is indeed no real difference, yet Her Majesty’s Government are supporting a group that appears, at least slightly, to be linked to a group that, as my right hon. Friend’s colleague the Minister for Europe and the Americas said just now, is a proscribed organisation.

Alistair Burt: I thank my hon. Friend not only for his question but for his leadership of the FAC, and we will study its report carefully. It asked for clarity in some situations in which it is genuinely difficult to provide clarity. There will be a full written response from the Foreign Office in due course, but we do designate the PKK as a proscribed organisation; that is the situation at present.

Syria: Chemical Weapons

John Woodcock: What evidence his Department has received on the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Alistair Burt: We are deeply concerned by recent reports of chemical weapons use in Syria. UK officials are in contact with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is investigating. We condemn all use of chemical weapons and are working with international partners to identify and hold to account those responsible.

John Woodcock: I thank the Minister for that answer. Anyone who seeks to draw a false equivalence in relation to Syria’s grotesque gassing of its own citizens risks aiding and abetting that gruesome activity. The Government’s concern is not enough, and words are not enough. What is the UK actually going to do to take action to stop this activity? This was supposed to be a red line for the international community, but it has been walked over time and again.

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern and anger not only about the use of chemical weapons but about their increasing use. We think that they have been used on perhaps four occasions since the turn of this year. If the use of chemical weapons once again becomes the norm in war, that will go against a century of a united response against them by the world. I took part in the recent conference in Paris led by the French Foreign Minister and the United States Secretary of State to counter activities in the UN, where the joint investigative mechanism has been vetoed on three occasions, by trying to create some other mechanism. We will continue to work through the UN to ensure that the international convention on chemical weapons once again becomes properly effective.

Alison McGovern: I thank the Minister for his responses on this subject, but 2018 has proved to be an absolutely brutal year so far for Syrian civilians. What can we do? We can put in place monitoring in that country. Will the Minister tell us a little more  about what UK Government resources are available for monitoring and collecting evidence of these terrible crimes?

Alistair Burt: Since the beginning of the conflict in Syria, the UK has been working to equip civilians on the ground with the tools they need to collect evidence that can be used to ensure accountability and justice. We have been doing that work for some years, and we will continue to do it. The hon. Lady has called attention to the increased use of chemical weapons in the past few weeks, which is an outrage. The world community is entitled to be outraged by it, and we must ensure that, through the UN, we do something effective to bring the perpetrators to justice.

Middle East

Luciana Berger: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on supporting the creation of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for International Development on the political obstacles to the provision of healthcare to Palestinians in the west bank and Gaza.

Alistair Burt: The United Kingdom supports the concept of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Department for International Development’s people-to-people programme has similar aims, and brings together individuals from both sides to build support for a durable solution. We also remain concerned about the provision of healthcare in Gaza, and we are urging all the parties to take the necessary steps to improve conditions there.

Luciana Berger: I think the Minister for his response. With the UK’s increased commitment to funding coexistence projects in Israel-Palestine, which many on both sides of the House have long supported, we have an opportunity to lead the way on the global stage. Will he therefore pledge the UK’s diplomatic support to help to create that international fund, to ensure that our funding is matched by others as part of a sustainable international initiative to build the peace in the middle east that we all long for?

Alistair Burt: Many of us have worried over the years that one of the worst aspects of the conflict has been the separation of peoples. To that extent, we are following the concept of the development of this fund very carefully, and I will continue to take a strong personal interest in it. The sentiment behind it is exactly why we have the £3 million programme, but we will be watching the development of the international fund and giving it support where we can.

Alex Cunningham: A couple of weeks ago, I was humbled to meet a group of young Palestinians and listen to their personal stories about the restrictions on healthcare. A report from the World Health Organisation states that 54 patients died in 2017 while awaiting exit permits to get medical treatment outside Gaza. Will the  Minister press Israel to remove the restrictions on patients, to prevent more Palestinians from dying while waiting for medical treatment?

Alistair Burt: The circumstances in Gaza remain dire in many ways. The free movement of patients and medical personnel is vital to the effectiveness of care. We regularly raise concerns about ambulance and permit delays with the Israeli authorities, and we will continue to do so.

Bob Blackman: Since September 2015, some 58 Israelis and four foreign nationals have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists in more than 400 separate stabbing, shooting and car ramming incidents. The terrorists have been rewarded with honorary titles, monthly salaries and other opportunities. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Palestinian Authority that, until such time as glorification of terrorism ends, there can be no peace in the middle east?

Alistair Burt: As my hon. Friend is aware, we continue to condemn incitement and violent activities in the region at all times. The attacks that he mentions are absolutely not conducive to peace and should not be celebrated. However, the context of the situation means that we must continue to work for an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, because only when that happens will the seeds of conflict be taken away. In the meantime, we unreservedly condemn all terrorist and violent attacks.

Liz McInnes: After the US halved its funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency last month, President Trump explained the decision by saying that the Palestinians
“disrespected us…by not allowing our great vice president to see them...that money is not going to them unless they sit down and negotiate peace.”
May I ask the Minister to state, on behalf of this House, that extorting the Palestinian Authority to bend the knee to Mike Pence by removing essential healthcare and education from impoverished Palestinian families is nothing short of a disgrace?

Alistair Burt: The actions of the United States Government in this case have nothing to do with us. Our view on UNRWA remains absolutely clear. I met the director of UNRWA just this morning at the Department for International Development. We will continue to support it and to fund it. To leave refugees in Lebanon and Jordan without support would be a disaster. UNRWA needs to continue to get support, and it will do so from the United Kingdom.

Institute for Free Trade: Launch Cost

Chris Bryant: What the cost to the public purse was of the launch of the Institute for Free Trade held on his Department’s premises.

Boris Johnson: There was no cost to the public purse.

Chris Bryant: Oh, come off it! Come off it! The right hon. Gentleman must think that we were all born yesterday. The truth is that this was a private party,  which was going on on Government premises, sanctioned by the Foreign Secretary. He has been trying to dress up a tinpot bunch of ideological crackpots as an institute, quite against the law, and he has broken the ministerial code. He has been caught in flagrante delicto, hasn’t he?

Boris Johnson: I am under the unhappy duty of contradicting the hon. Gentleman. He is talking the most perfect tripe. The event that took place was completely non-partisan. Members of all parties were present. [Interruption.] Including the Labour party. EU and non-EU ambassadors were represented. It was fully in line with Foreign and Commonwealth Office rules on hosting such events, and I have here a letter from the Cabinet Secretary to confirm that, which I am happy to pass to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid to say that the Cabinet Secretary has been pestered with complaints from the Labour party about this absolutely blameless event, which was there to support and encourage free trade, which is a major objective of Government policy and should be an objective of the hon. Gentleman—or is it not?

Jeremy Lefroy: Was the excellent continental free trade area agreement of the African Union, which would bring great prosperity, discussed? If it was not discussed then, could it be discussed at the next meeting? I would be very happy to pay for it.

John Bercow: I don’t think it was a meeting, I think it was a booze-up.

Boris Johnson: I hesitate for an age before correcting you, Mr Speaker, but it was a serious discussion of the advancement of free trade. The subject of free trade in the African Union, which my hon. Friend raises, is a very good one. The only advice I would give to the African Union is not to acquire a parliament, a court or a single currency.

John Bercow: I readily defer to the Foreign Secretary’s knowledge of this important event.

Chris Bryant: He was there for a long time.

John Bercow: I do not know how long he was there, and I cannot say that I greatly care. We have had the answers.

Global Ocean Conservation

Mary Robinson: What steps his Department is taking to support global ocean conservation.

Alan Duncan: At the previous Foreign Office questions in January, I explained that the UK is leading by example on ocean conservation. The Government are on track to meet their manifesto blue belt pledge, which will deliver marine protection across nearly 4 million sq km of the waters around our overseas territories by 2020. Through the Commonwealth marine economies programme, we are working to enable small island Commonwealth states to conserve and use their maritime space sustainably.

Mary Robinson: In common with my constituents, I welcome the microbeads ban and other measures taken by the Government to protect the marine environment, but we need a global approach. What diplomatic steps is my right hon. Friend taking to engage with the United Nations and other countries to push the blue belt charter up the global agenda?

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the steps that we have taken, such as on microbeads. As for her main point, we are closely involved in negotiations to develop a UN treaty on marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdictions. As chair of the Commonwealth for the next two years, we will work with member states to create a Commonwealth blue charter. In the G7, we are working closely with Canada during its presidency to deliver our shared ambition to tackle the threats facing our oceans.

British Council

John Baron: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of funding for the British Council.

Mark Field: I welcome the significant contribution made by the British Council to projecting British values overseas, which I regularly witness on my visits to Asia and the Pacific. My officials and I are in regular dialogue with the British Council across the globe to discuss the scope of its important work. We will continue to work with it to ensure compliance with our manifesto commitment to
“place… the British Council on a secure footing”.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for that response. Given the importance of the British Council to our soft power, what are the implications of possible cuts to non-overseas development aid funding for the council’s work? How might they affect the Government’s plans for a global Britain?

Mark Field: The council has agreed to reduce its non-ODA grant from the Foreign Office to zero by the end of the spending review period in exchange for additional official development assistance funding. As part of our vision for a global Britain, we want a properly funded and effective council that projects British values right across the world. The council will continue to deliver activity in non-ODA countries through the income generated from other sources, such as its commercial income.

Leaving the EU: Diplomatic Co-operation

Matt Rodda: What assessment he has made of the strength of the UK’s future diplomatic co-operation with its current EU partners after leaving the EU.

Bambos Charalambous: What assessment he has made of the strength of the UK’s future diplomatic co-operation with its current EU partners after leaving the EU.

Boris Johnson: We are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU post Brexit. Our existing relationship provides a strong foundation for vital continued co-operation on global challenges. We are working to strengthen, reinvigorate and reshape our bilateral relationships with our European partners, focusing on shared values and interests.

Matt Rodda: The Foreign Secretary’s 5,000-word speech on Brexit last week was described by one of his ministerial colleagues as follows:
“He is completely in denial about the complexity of the exit and the negative economic…consequences.”
Will the Foreign Secretary clear something up? Is he in denial or is he just wrong?

Boris Johnson: If I may, I will respectfully resist the alternatives that the hon. Gentleman lays before me. Last week, I was trying to make the point that we now have a massive opportunity to come together—people who voted remain and people who voted leave—to get a positive arrangement and a positive Brexit that will be of massive benefit to people both in this country and in the whole of the European continent. If we are ambitious and positive, I have absolutely no doubt that we can pull it off.

Bambos Charalambous: The Foreign Secretary claimed last week that it would be “intolerable” for the UK not to set its own regulations after Brexit. The next day, a Harvard survey of UK importers and exporters found that the last thing that they want is the dual regulatory burden of having to comply with both UK and EU rules. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us who is right?

Boris Johnson: I think that the Harvard survey is right: nobody wants two sets of regulations to be imposed on the UK economy. That is why the Prime Minister was completely right—wasn’t she?—at Lancaster House and, indeed, in Florence and in sundry other places when she said that Brexit means taking back control of our money, our borders and, above all, our laws. That is what we are going to do.

Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to praise the work of Her Majesty’s diplomatic service? Is he content that our embassies in the 27 remaining EU countries are sufficiently resourced to represent the United Kingdom effectively after Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I am so glad that my hon. Friend asked that question because we are not only upgrading seven ambassadorial posts in the 27 other EU countries, but increasing our staffing across the network in the EU by 50.

Chris Bryant: No you’re not.

Boris Johnson: Yes we are. Again, I am getting some negativity from a sedentary position on the Opposition Benches. In addition to beefing up our relations with our EU friends and partners, we will open 15 embassies in Africa.

Emily Thornberry: It has been pointed out that the Foreign Secretary’s Brexit speech last week was 5,000 words long, but it did not once include the words “Northern” or “Ireland”. That is perhaps the biggest problem that the Government need to tackle, yet the Foreign Secretary did not even mention it. Will he belatedly take the opportunity to explain in simple terms how it is possible for the UK to diverge from the EU in regulations, tariffs and other aspects of trade while retaining the current arrangements on the Irish land border? Will he enlighten us? What is the plan?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Lady knows very well, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not be able to exit the customs union and the single market while maintaining frictionless trade not only north-south in Northern Ireland, but with the rest of continental Europe. That is exactly what the Government will spell out in the course of the coming negotiations.

International Peacekeeping

Jess Phillips: What steps he is taking to support international peacekeeping efforts.

Harriett Baldwin: The UK champions peacekeeping financially, politically and militarily. Since 2015, we have more than doubled our commitment to UN peacekeeping, with British forces deploying to South Sudan and Somalia. There are now more than 700 UK personnel deployed on eight UN peacekeeping missions in seven countries.

Jess Phillips: In the light of ongoing reports of sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers, does the Minister agree that increasing the number of women peacekeepers is a vital part of addressing the crisis in the long term? Will she also tell us the proportion of peacekeepers from the UK who are women and what plans she has to increase their representation on UN deployments?

Harriett Baldwin: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s leadership on the issue and her work on all aspects of it. I think that she will admire the leadership role that the UK has played not only in putting the subject on the UN’s agenda last year, but with the our Prime Minister’s appointment to the Secretary-General’s Circle of Leadership. I assure her that we will continue to champion that agenda at every opportunity.
On the topic that the hon. Lady raised about women from our armed forces, she will know about the impressive agenda that includes the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act 2018, and that we are aiming to increase the proportion of women from 11% to 15%.

Topical Questions

Henry Smith: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Boris Johnson: My immediate priority is to take forward Britain’s response to the humanitarian crisis in Burma and in Bangladesh. I was deeply moved by the plight of Rohingya refugees whom I met in Cox’s  Bazar earlier this month. I went to Burma with the express purpose of raising the tragedy with State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi. The UK’s goal is to help to create the conditions for the safe, voluntary and dignified return of the refugees to their homes.
The House will join me in welcoming the Gambia back to the Commonwealth, providing an excellent prelude to the Commonwealth summit in London in April.

Henry Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say what discussions he has had with the Government in Wellington about UK-New Zealand trade and co-operation on Brexit?

Mark Field: I have just returned from a sun-kissed New Zealand, where I had fruitful discussions—[Interruption.]—indoors in the main, with a range of political figures, including my counterparts the Associate Foreign Minister and the Trade Minister, and with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. New Zealand is a valued Five Eyes security partner and a priority for a deeper security and trade agreement once we leave the EU. We have the broadest and deepest friendship with New Zealand.

Helen Goodman: The UK is joint guarantor of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, yet we have seen booksellers abducted, elected legislators barred and student demonstrators imprisoned, and in Guangdong, in December, 10 people were tried in a sports stadium before being executed. Why did the Prime Minister not raise the issue of human rights in public in Beijing? Was it because she does not care or because she is so desperate to get a trade deal?

Mark Field: I reassure the shadow Minister that the Prime Minister did raise these issues, but we do this not through megaphone diplomacy but in private meetings; we relentlessly raise human rights issues, not least in respect of Hong Kong. As the hon. Lady rightly says, it is vital that Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms are respected. Our most recent six-monthly report states that one country, two systems must continue to function well, and we remain concerned by, for example, the rejection of Agnes Chow’s most recent nomination for March’s Legislative Council election.

Fiona Bruce: What steps has the Department taken to highlight concerns about North Koreans sent to other countries to work, in effect, as slave labourers—and with what result?

Mark Field: We have fully supported the United Nations resolutions that have imposed increasing sanctions upon the use of overseas labour from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Many such workers operate in slavery-like conditions while the DPRK regime takes a large slice of their wages. The latest of those was UN Security Council resolution 2379, which was adopted as recently as 22 December last year.

Stephen Timms: The Foreign Secretary mentioned his visit to Bangladesh and Burma, and his meetings with the Rohingya. We hold the pen at the UN on this issue. Will the British  Government bring forward a resolution referring Myanmar to the International Criminal Court, given what happened?

Boris Johnson: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject. As he knows, the difficulty is that in the UN Security Council there will be those who would not support such a resolution at present. The crucial thing is that everybody in the region and around the world makes it clear to the Government in Naypyidaw and to Daw Suu that the only way forward now for Burma is to create the conditions for a safe, dignified and voluntary return—and that must mean an independent UN-led agency to oversee the repatriation, otherwise those people are going to be too frightened to return. That is the priority on which we should focus.

Jeremy Lefroy: The people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have suffered for far too long. At least 6 million people have died in the past 20 years—it is probably more—and 4 million were internally displaced last year, which is more than the figure for any other country in the world. Will the Minister say what the British Government are doing to ensure that we do all we can to see the suffering brought to an end?

Harriett Baldwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this disastrous situation and the importance of the UK’s role. He will be aware that the DRC is an extremely dangerous place even for the UN peacekeepers; some were killed last year. The UK Government are calling on President Kabila to respect the constitution, to fulfil the commitments made in the Saint-Sylvestre accord and to continue with the implementation path to elections this year.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Since the Saudi-led coalition began airstrikes, more than 10,000 civilians have been killed in Yemen. Norway and Germany recently suspended their arms sales to Saudi Arabia. What will it take for the UK Government to do the same?

Alistair Burt: We have one of the strictest arms control regimes in the world, governed both by this House and by the law, and we will continue to abide by that. In the meantime, we are doing everything we can to encourage a diplomatic solution to end the conflict in Yemen. That is the only thing that will bring the suffering of the people of Yemen to an end.

Rachel Maclean: In the light of the recent Vote 100 celebrations in this House and the launch of our Equalitea party in Redditch, supported by women and girls of all ages, will my right hon. Friend assure me that his international agendas are also supporting women and girls?

Boris Johnson: We are totally aligned with what is taking place in Redditch in the sense that, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa said earlier, our ambition for there to be 12 years of quality education for every girl in the world, which I believe is the universal spanner that will help to unlock so many other global problems, is at the heart of our Commonwealth summit—

Helen Goodman: The universal what?

Boris Johnson: The universal spanner—a device that will solve almost any problem. I truly believe that female education is at the heart of solving so many other global problems, which is why we are putting it at the very centre of the Commonwealth summit in April and the upcoming G7 summit. Across our network, female education is at the heart of everything that we do.

John Bercow: Order. There is a lot of chortling going on in the Chamber, but we have had an update on the spanner situation, for which we are indebted to the Foreign Secretary.

Jim Shannon: What steps is the Department taking to provide training on freedom of religion or belief for its officials?

Mark Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I am well aware that this issue is close to his heart. He will be aware that Lord Ahmad and I regularly liaise on the issue with our embassies and high commissions. I wrote a joint letter to those on my patch, in Asia and the Pacific, and I have received replies from Bangladesh, Burma, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. I am encouraged that the network takes the issue as seriously as the hon. Gentleman does.

Julia Lopez: If Britain is to assume a more ambitious global trading role as we leave the EU, we shall surely need to expand the depth and reach of our network of high commissions and embassies in regions such as North America. What assurances can my right hon. Friend offer the House that critical diplomatic missions in countries such as Canada are being expanded, not cut back?

Boris Johnson: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that to the best of my knowledge we have, just in the past 18 months, opened three new trade missions in North America. I cannot comment about Canada specifically, but we are certainly beefing up our presence in the United States in advance of doing a great free trade deal.

Rushanara Ali: The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights described what is happening to the Rohingya people as a military campaign in which
“you cannot rule out the possibility that acts of genocide have been committed”.
Having met the victims in Bangladesh and Myanmar, the Foreign Secretary said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) that a Security Council referral is too difficult. Will he show some leadership and work with our EU partners next week at the Foreign Affairs Council to build support for a referral? The act of a referral will make a difference.

Boris Johnson: As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, Myanmar is not signed up to the International Criminal Court, but there must be no doubt about the gravity of what has taken place. Anybody who flies over northern Rakhine, as I did last week, will see literally hundreds of villages that have been burned or destroyed.  Some 680,000 people have been displaced. This has been ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale and it may also have been genocide. It is vital that the evidence is acquired to determine whether any future prosecution can be mounted.

Hugo Swire: The recent extension of the state of emergency and the arrest of former President Gayoom and two Supreme Court judges has shown President Yameen tightening the grip in the Maldives and the further extinguishing of the democratic institutions there. Given the fact that at any one time there are literally thousands of British holidaymakers on those islands, and that until recently the Maldives was a welcome member of the Commonwealth family, will the Secretary of State agree to head up a mission there, or encourage the UN to establish one? The situation has the potential to bring China and India into an unwelcome regional conflict.

Mark Field: Like my right hon. Friend I am deeply troubled by the declaration of a state of emergency in the Maldives on 5 February and the accompanying suspension of fundamental rights. Last November in London, I met former President Nasheed, whose own time in office was turbulent, and we discussed the deteriorating situation. We will very much take on board my right hon. Friend’s suggestions.

Chris Stephens: Is the Secretary of State concerned about weekend reports by human rights observers that the civilians of Afrin have been subjected to chemical gas attacks by Turkish forces? Should we expect that conduct from a so-called NATO ally?

Alistair Burt: As I mentioned earlier, any suggestion of the use of chemical weapons must be independently verified. The degree to which they have become more used in the Syrian conflict by a number of different sources, not least the regime, is a matter of great concern, but any suggestion must be properly identified and verified.

Anna Soubry: The Good Friday agreement has brought about peace for almost 20 years in Northern Ireland. Will the Foreign Secretary give an unequivocal assurance that Her Majesty’s Government will not do anything that undermines the agreement, including pursuing any policy that undermines the principles that led to its creation?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Clive Efford: Has the Secretary of State had the chance to speak to the Sri Lankan ambassador regarding his defence attaché Brigadier Priyanka Fernando and his behaviour on 4 February, when he made throat-slitting gestures to Tamil protesters? If somebody else incited hatred in that way on our streets, they would be interviewed by the police. Will the Minister make arrangements for Brigadier Priyanka Fernando to be interviewed by the police about that crime?

Mark Field: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK takes this incident very seriously. When I spoke recently to Foreign Minister Marapana, he left me in no doubt that the Sri Lankan Government were treating it with the seriousness that it deserves. They have informed  the UK Government that they have ordered the defence attaché to return to Colombo from London with immediate effect for consultations while the incident is thoroughly investigated. I hope that the UK and Sri Lanka bilateral relationship will remain strong and co-operative.

Zac Goldsmith: I know the Foreign Secretary shares my view that our leadership in marine conservation, particularly in respect of the blue belt, is a source of national pride, but may I urge him please to use the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in April to press our Commonwealth allies, more than half of which are island states, to make that a high priority in the discussions ahead?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the pioneering role he has played in championing the blue belt initiative, which has consecrated millions of square miles of ocean, protecting habitats and species around the world. As he knows, the UK Government have put a further £20 million into that scheme. As he rightly foreshadows, it is our ambition at the Commonwealth summit to go further.

Peter Grant: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the plight of my constituents, Mr and Mrs Westwood, who were first of all defrauded of their entire possessions in Zimbabwe and then forced to flee for their lives by armed gangs with very close links with the Mugabe regime. Will he explain why the Westwoods recently received a letter that appeared to indicate that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was no longer willing to give them any assistance? Will he agree to meet me and the Westwoods to give them his personal assurance that the FCO will not abandon them?

Harriett Baldwin: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.

Patrick McLoughlin: May I ask my right hon. Friend what his view is of the position with the Ecuadorian embassy in London? The situation has been going on since 19 June 2012. In the first three years, it was estimated to have cost the Metropolitan police an extra £11 million. When are we going to take action?

Alan Duncan: Julian Assange breached his bail conditions in 2012. In upholding the arrest warrant of 13 February, Judge Arbuthnot said:
“He appears to consider himself above the normal rules of law and wants justice only if it goes in his favour.”
In our view, Assange is not a victim of arbitrary detention. He is avoiding lawful arrest. He should step outside the door and face justice. That would bring an end to the matter.

Neil Coyle: Almost two years ago, my constituent Adrian St John was murdered in Trinidad. Since then, his mother Sharon and I have been working with Ministers and officials in both countries to secure justice, but progress has been grindingly slow. The case in Trinidad has been adjourned 27 times. Will the Government ensure that Adrian’s murder is on the agenda when the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago visits London in April, and will Ministers allow time during Mr Rowley’s official visit to meet Sharon and me to help her to secure justice?

Alan Duncan: I commend the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he is defending the interests of his constituent. I am acutely aware of this case. Adrian was murdered in Trinidad. We cannot interfere in the judicial process, but we are extending every possible support. I advise the House that we understand that a preliminary trial to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the accused with murder will be held on 8 March. I hope that this will mark some progress towards what the hon. Gentleman is seeking.

Royston Smith: Millions of people are celebrating the seventh anniversary of the start of the Libyan uprising and the ousting of Colonel Gaddafi. Fayez al-Sarraj has been the Prime Minister of Libya for nearly two years and progress has been painfully slow. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what his Department is doing to help the Government of National Accord to bring about a prosperous and—more importantly—peaceful Libya?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in a country that is still bedevilled by factional feuding between a very small number of men—a maximum of about half a dozen—who have it in their power to come together and build a better future for Libya. We are trying to back the efforts of UN Special Representative Ghassan Salamé to bring the eastern and western parts of Libya together, with a plan for the whole country—a new constitution, to be followed by elections. That is what we are working for.

Andrew Slaughter: May I ask the Minister for the Middle East what representations have been made in the case of Nabeel Rajab, the president of the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights, who is facing another long prison sentence tomorrow, simply for taking to social media to criticise torture in Bahrain’s prisons and the Saudi-led war in Yemen?

Alistair Burt: There are a small number of those who have been arrested and have had lengthy trials in Bahrain. The United Kingdom has made representations in a number of these cases, including those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and we continue to monitor the trials and processes very carefully.

Rebecca Pow: Estimates suggest that 12 million tonnes of plastic go into our oceans every year, causing immense damage to our ecosystems. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need not only to get involved on the global stage to influence the cleaning up of our oceans, but to lead by example in the UK, not least—it might only be a small thing—by giving up plastic for Lent as far as we can, as many hon. Members are doing?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend speaks for millions of people in the country who feel ashamed to see the state of our oceans and wish that they could be cleared up. This country is taking a lead. Cracking down on plastic waste will certainly be at the heart of the Commonwealth summit. I have to admit that I do not know how easily I could give up plastic for Lent. I have a plastic biro in my right hand; I propose to take it out and dispose of it in a suitable manner. My hon. Friend is entirely right.

MEDICAL CANNABIS

Crispin Blunt: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the case of Alfie Dingley, whose parents and doctors are seeking access to medical cannabis to treat his epilepsy.

Nick Hurd: I, personally, and the Government sympathise deeply with the situation faced by Alfie Dingley and his family. I think that everyone on both sides of the House and outside it will understand and respect the desire of the family to try to alleviate his suffering in any way possible. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to help to find a solution within the existing regulations.
As my hon. Friend will know, the current situation is that cannabis, in its raw form, is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. It is therefore listed as a schedule 1 drug under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. This means that it is unlawful to produce, supply or possess raw cannabis unless it is for the purposes of research. Products must be thoroughly tested in the UK to provide the necessary assurances of their efficacy, quality and safety.
We have a clear regime in place that is administered by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK, as happened in the case of Sativex, as my hon. Friend knows. The Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. Cannabis-based products should be treated in the same way as all other drugs, meaning that they should go through the normal testing procedures applied to any other medicines.
The current situation is that outside of research we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, we are aware of differing approaches in other countries and continue to monitor the World Health Organisation’s expert committee on drug dependence, which has committed to reviewing the use of medicinal cannabis. We will wait until the outcome of the review before considering any next steps. [Interruption.] I am also aware—before the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) starts chuntering—that the private Member’s Bill on the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes introduced by the hon. Gentleman will give the House a further opportunity to debate the wider policy.
The whole House will understand that it is a natural desire for parents to do everything they can to make sure that their children do not suffer unnecessarily, but we also need to make sure that cannabis is subjected to the same regulatory framework that applies to all medicines in the UK. We must ensure that only medicines that have been tested for their safety to the correct standard are prescribed for UK children.

Crispin Blunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for saying at the beginning of his response that he is determined to find a solution to this. That will also be welcomed by  my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, Alfie Dingley’s MP, who has been working hard, if necessarily privately, on his behalf.
I hope that the Home Office is going to find a way to cease standing behind a 1961 UN scheduling of cannabis as having no medicinal benefit whatsoever. My right hon. Friend mentioned Sativex. However, there are now 12, soon to be 15, states of the European Union and 29 states of the United States of America, and the District of Columbia, that have all found a way to license the medicinal use of cannabis. Is he aware of the position of the Republic of Ireland, which, with a legal framework very similar to ours, gave its Health Minister the explicit power to license use of the medicine in cases such as Alfie’s?
My right hon. Friend’s position, and that of the Government, currently flies in the face of the popular view in the United Kingdom, where 78% of people think that we should find a way of using cannabis-based medicine. Out there, most people instinctively understand the pain and symptom relief that is available from cannabis-based medicines. Here, we know from the Barnes review of 2016, commissioned by the all-party parliamentary group on drug policy reform, that there is good, peer-reviewed medical evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis-based medicines for conditions associated with multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy, and epilepsy.
Failure by the Government to move from their current position will sentence Alfie to the steroid-based treatment he was receiving before he went to the Netherlands, which is likely to give him early psychosis and a premature death. Their position also means that British citizens are being denied all the potential medical and symptomatic benefits that could come from a properly licensed, regulated and researched access programme to cannabis-based medicines. If we do not give people the licences to do the medical research, we will not get the products. Granting the licences would mean that we would not have to rely on the wisdom of crowds and illegally sourced and unreliable products, and would have peer-reviewed, evidence based treatments produced to pharmaceutical standards.
I urge my right hon. Friend, who is very far from being cruel and heartless—as indeed are the rest of his colleagues in the Home Office—to help either the manufacturers of the drug that will save Alfie’s life, or his doctors or the family to find a way through to get a licence to treat him, and to instruct his officials to assist. It is an indication of just how messed up our management of this issue is that my right hon. Friend from the Home Office is answering this urgent question and not a Health Minister. On health grounds, this is an open-and-shut case.

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend. I totally respect his position. I should place it on record that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), is sitting next to me, very much in listening mode.
I reassure my hon. Friend, and my right hon. Friend the Attorney General, who has made many representations to me on behalf of Alfie Dingley and his family, that there are clearly some special circumstances in this case that need to be respected. I have undertaken to meet the family, and I will do that as quickly as possible. I also  undertake to explore every option within the current regulatory framework. I give that undertaking with sincerity.
I know my hon. Friend well enough to know that he will understand the importance of proceeding on the basis of evidence, particularly when it concerns the safety of drugs and of children. We have our position—he is right that it has been established for a long time—and it is supported by expert opinion. However, we are aware that the position is shifting in other countries, and we monitor that closely.
We are also aware that cannabis is an extremely complex substance, and the WHO quite rightly is looking at it from every angle to get an up-to-date view on its therapeutic use. We are monitoring all that closely. Our current regulatory position is what it is. However, I have undertaken to explore every option within the regulatory framework to see whether we can find a solution to this extremely emotive case.

Carolyn Harris: There has been a call to allow a licence for administering medical cannabis to Alfie Dingley, but the Government must thoroughly examine the evidence in this area—both the stated benefits and the supposed risks of medical cannabis. Our policies must always be based on evidence and not frightened of scary headlines or chasing favourable ones. Only in that way can the House come to an informed decision on the wider issues.
Alfie Dingley is a six-year-old boy whose life is blighted by epileptic fits, and it is understandable that his family want him to have whatever medication they feel will help him. They look to us as politicians to facilitate that, but we are constrained by laws. Members supportive of drug policy reform would like the Home Secretary to issue a licence so that Alfie can continue taking the medication, but the Home Office has responded that the drug
“cannot be practically prescribed, administered or supplied to the public”.
Cannabis use is illegal in this country—we do not dispute that. However, we need assurances from the Minister that all the evidence relating to Alfie’s case has been looked at and that all avenues of treatment are being considered. We need confidence that the Minister and his colleagues are doing everything in their power to ensure that Alfie has the best possible quality of life.
This case is the latest in a long line of prominent examples that have led to more calls for legislation to permit the medical use of cannabis. Is it now time for a review of the law, to look at how we can better support those living in chronic pain, those with long-term degenerative conditions and those in the final stages of life?

Nick Hurd: I agree with the hon. Lady that policy should be evidence-led, and I support entirely her point that we need to think very carefully about the implications and consequences of everything we do.
As I said in my statement, outside of research, we would not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, as in the case of Sativex, the Home Office will consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs  Regulations 2001, providing it complies with appropriate ethical approvals. I repeat that I personally undertake to explore every option within the existing regulations to see if we can find a solution.

Philip Hollobone: I support the medical use of cannabis and think the Government should be more fleet of foot on this issue. A sensible proposed amendment to the law in a free vote in this House would, I think, be carried.

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I dispute the allegation that the Government are not fleet of foot on this. As I said in my statement, we are aware that things are changing in other countries and that the WHO is reviewing the evidence, and we will follow that very closely indeed.

Paul Flynn: We would have to have a heart of stone if any of our children or grandchildren were in this position and we were told by a stubborn bureaucracy that they had to turn blue up to 30 times a day and have seizures because our law says that that is the situation. Twenty-nine American states have legalised cannabis for medicinal purposes, and in every one of them, the use of deadly, dangerous opioids has gone down. Every alternative to natural cannabis is worse. It is not just one case; thousands of people have the choice of suffering terrible pain and seizures every day or criminalising themselves by breaking the law. I urge them to break the law, because the law in this case is an ass, and it is cruel and lacks compassion.

Nick Hurd: I do not have a heart of stone, and I say that not just as a parent of six children. Anyone with or without children could not fail to be moved by this case, but, as the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) said, we have to look at this through the lens of its implications across the system. We have to look at this through the lens of the existing law, which is set on the basis of expert advice, not least from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is very clear that
“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue”,
and, in its words, can
“unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”
We cannot ignore that advice. However, as I have said, we are monitoring closely the work done by the WHO and other countries, and precedents elsewhere, and, as I have undertaken to do in this particular case, we will explore every option within the existing regulations.

Michael Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, it is not just Alfie; thousands of people have such conditions. I have a constituent, Vicky Clarke—now just 5 stone in weight—in St Giles hospice in my constituency, suffering from the very final stages of multiple sclerosis. Her husband has found that the only drug that alleviated her pain was cannabis, and he has twice been investigated by the police. We are not talking about the general administration of cannabis; we are talking about the medical prescription of cannabis. If a doctor says that cannabis is the only cure or a medical professional says that it is the only way to alleviate pain, surely they should be legally allowed to prescribe that drug?

Nick Hurd: Well, they still have to operate within the law. The law does permit the development, licensing and marketing of medicines, including those containing controlled drugs, such as cannabis. I have used the example of Sativex, which I believe provides relief to patients with MS. My hon. Friend talks about lots of other cases like this one. It is worth noting, however, that in the case of Alfie Dingley, I think only nine other children in the world suffer from the same type of epilepsy as he does. That is why I have undertaken to explore every option on his behalf. I make it quite clear that the Home Office and the Government are keeping this area under review, because this is fast moving. The House will of course have the chance to debate it along with the private Member’s Bill.

Joanna Cherry: The Scottish National party is in favour of the decriminalisation of cannabis for medicinal use, given the evidence of the benefit it has in alleviating the symptoms of many serious conditions, such as that suffered by young Alfie Dingley. In 2016, our party conference heard evidence from a multiple sclerosis sufferer, Laura Brennan-Whitefield, who called for “compassion and common sense” on this issue. She said:
“I’m not advocating the smoking of cannabis, what I’m advocating is a progressive and reasonable, compassionate society where you can access pain relief”.
We urge the UK Government to look again very seriously at decriminalising the use of cannabis for medicinal use. If they are not prepared to do so, we ask them to devolve the power to Scotland, so that the Scottish Government can take appropriate steps. However, we would like to see this for everybody in the United Kingdom.

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her contribution, and this issue will be debated with the private Member’s Bill on Friday. Again, I come back to the point that we have the existing regulatory framework, and we will not issue licences for the personal consumption of cannabis because it is listed as a schedule 1 drug. However, it is possible to consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, and there is precedent for doing so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), can I ask him whether he was present at the start of these exchanges?

Bob Stewart: indicated assent.

John Bercow: He was. Very good.

Bob Stewart: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I certainly was here, just silent. I support the medical use of cannabis, particularly in this case. If the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) passes with a sufficient majority on Friday, might the Government fast-track it through the House?

Nick Hurd: We look forward to the debate on Friday. We will see what the will of the House is.

Christine Jardine: The Minister has heard support from those of us on these Benches, but does he not support the views of his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, where the health spokesman Miles Briggs said:
“it is time for a comprehensive, UK wide review…and for Parliament to look to reform access to cannabis for medical and scientific purposes”?
Does he recognise that there is widespread support in all parties?

Nick Hurd: There are good reasons for the Government’s current position. As I made clear in my statement, we are looking very closely at the approaches being taken by other countries. We have a keen eye on what the global experts, the WHO’s expert committee on drug dependence, conclude in relation to the therapeutic and medicinal benefits of cannabis.

Desmond Swayne: It is Bill number three on Friday. There is not going to be a debate, is there?

Nick Hurd: That depends on what happens to the first two Bills.

Yasmin Qureshi: I have had a number of constituents in the past eight years who have suffered from different illnesses, such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. They told me that conventional drugs have not worked for them. Often, they have had to travel abroad, especially Holland, to obtain and use cannabis, which has helped them significantly. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to please consider allowing the medicinal use of cannabis.

Nick Hurd: I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, which underlines why the WHO is undertaking its work. I am sure she will agree, however, that cannabis products must be treated in the same way as all other drugs. That means going through the normal testing procedures that apply to any other medicine.

Steve Pound: May I help the Minister and suggest that he speak with his colleague the Secretary of State for Health and ask about the extensive trial, known as delta-9, which took place in the Royal Marsden hospital 40 years ago? Cannabis was found to be an excellent prophylactic against nausea caused by ontological medicine. The data is there. The empirical evidence is there. Why does he not save time and trouble by having a word with the Secretary of State and drawing this information to the attention of the House? Let us resolve this matter once and for all.

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman will understand why I approach any offer of help from him with caution, but in this case I will certainly discuss the evidence he mentions with my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care. We need to proceed on the basis of evidence, because of the need for safety.

Alan Brown: The Government have heard several times that cannabis for medicinal use is available in many countries. It is clear that the evidence is there. It is allowed in other EU countries. One of the benefits of being in the EU, while  we are still there, is collaboration. We are able to review research that is available elsewhere and come to a quick decision. Will the Minister confirm that there are no barriers at the top of level of the Government preventing that?

Nick Hurd: I am not aware of any barriers. What I am aware of is the current regulatory framework, underpinned by expert advice, which continues to be that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefit. The situation is evolving in other countries and the WHO is looking at it. It is right that we keep an open mind and that we continue to look at the evidence and the precedence from other countries.

Paula Sherriff: I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group on epilepsy and as the daughter of an epilepsy sufferer. In addition to the cost in human misery, can the Minister advise on whether any attempt has been made to estimate the net cost of continuous ineffective treatment for epilepsy sufferers who are denied access to cannabis for medicinal purposes?

Nick Hurd: I think that question is best answered by the Department of Health. What I am keen to register with the House is our determination to try to explore every option within the boundaries of the existing regulations to see whether we can support this case.

Edward Davey: The whole House will welcome the fact that the Minister has agreed to meet the family of Alfie Dingley. Will he also agree to meet the campaign group, End Our Pain, which is campaigning to allow doctors to prescribe cannabis when it would help their patients? End Our Pain wants to present to the Minister the evidence that honourable colleagues have talked about and discuss the fact that the Multiple Sclerosis Society has changed its position on the use of medicinal cannabis, based on the evidence.

Nick Hurd: I am certainly happy to meet that group, or a more appropriate Minister could, so the answer is yes.

Rupa Huq: I wonder whether the Minister knows the book, “The Boy in 7 Billion”, by Callie Blackwell, the mum of Deryn Blackwell who, at the age of 10, was diagnosed with a very rare cancer and then, through the use of cannabis oil, made a miraculous recovery. If he likes, I can lend him my copy. I got one over recess at THTC, a company in my constituency that makes hemp t-shirts—sorry, it does not make them; it supplies them. It is not allowed to make them in this country. It also pointed out that in Mexico, where the medicinal use of cannabis has been legalised, violent crime has dramatically dropped. Does the Minister not think that those things are more than a coincidence, and will he not investigate?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Lady is taking us broader than a UK scope. I do not know the book and I am grateful to her for her offer, but I come back to what I said at the start. The Government have a position based on the listing as a schedule 1 drug and the view of experts, but we review, and keep under review, what is happening in other countries and, most importantly, the WHO’s position.

Caroline Lucas: We seem to be in some kind of Alice in Wonderland world where words mean the opposite of what we imagine. The Minister said that he is being fleet of foot, yet we have established that we are dragging our feet behind 15 EU member states and 29 US states. I have lost count of the number of times that he has talked about the importance of evidence, yet will he not accept the overwhelming evidence that there are no downsides to the kind of policy change that we are talking about, no matter how hard he looks for them? Why will he not commit at the very least to trials of the regulation of medical-based cannabis? That could, for example, answer questions about how best to differentiate between different types of use and facilitate research that might otherwise be hindered.

Nick Hurd: We are fleet of foot in the sense that we keep abreast of the evidence as it develops. I made it very clear in my statement that the Home Office will consider issuing licences to enable trials of any new medicine under schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, providing that it complies with the appropriate ethical approvals.

Clive Efford: Alfie’s mother said that any one of the 30 seizures that he has a day could be life-threatening, so there is incredible urgency. I have heard the Minister say that he is very sympathetic and I do not doubt that for a minute, but I have not heard him say when he will make a decision to help Alfie because of that urgency.

Nick Hurd: I totally accept the point about urgency, and I totally accept the point made by others that we cannot look at policy entirely through the lens of one case. However, I have undertaken to meet the family as quickly as possible, and we are exploring every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.

Ronnie Cowan: I have heard the Minister say that he is going to monitor the situation and that he is looking for evidence, but we have had that situation for decades. This place created the problem with poor legislation as far as back as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. We are in a situation where we know that medicinal cannabis is available that will particularly help Alfie. He has been taking it in the Netherlands. It is not beyond the wit of man to facilitate the continuation of that supply, if the will is there.

Nick Hurd: As I said in my statement, the UK has a view, which is that cannabis in its raw form is not recognised in the UK as having any medicinal benefits. As I also said, I recognise that there may be special circumstances in this case, which is why I am absolutely determined to look at every option inside the existing regulatory envelope.

Tonia Antoniazzi: As a Welsh MP, I am very proud of the Welsh Assembly, which recognises the need to legalise cannabis for medicinal use. Sativex is a very unpleasant, alcohol-based medicine that is unsuitable for many patients, and I hope that the Government will recognise that. However, we as a country are light years behind other countries, so the excuses today are just not valid. Why does the word “cannabis” scare the Government so much? We need to stop hiding  and stop making excuses. Can the Minister tell the parents of children such as Alfie and all the other people who need access to medicinal cannabis legally across the UK when that is going to happen?

Nick Hurd: What the Government do is listen to the independent, statutory Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has been very clear that
“the use of cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society.”
We cannot just ignore that expert advice. As I said in my statement, there is a precedent for medicines, including controlled drugs such as cannabis and Sativex, to be issued with a licence to enable trials.

Bob Seely: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I intend no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), but he was certainly not in that place some minutes ago. Whether he has just entered the Chamber, or has beetled there from another part of the Chamber—

Bob Seely: indicated assent.

John Bercow: He has beetled around the Chamber. It is slightly confusing for the Chair when people perambulate around the Chamber. Nevertheless, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has important thoughts to volunteer, so let us hear them.

Bob Seely: Looking around the world, it seems to me that the case for medical cannabis is somewhat overwhelming, although I understand that the Minister is in a difficult position at the moment. Does he think that there will ever be a time when medical cannabis is legal in this country, so that its benefits can be felt by those who need it?

Nick Hurd: Of course, policy must be evidence-led, so Governments of all colours must keep the evidence under review. I think that the next critical milestone will be the output of the WHO review. Cannabis is a highly complex substance, and the review is looking at it from every angle to try to give us the most definitive, up-to-date view on its medicinal and therapeutic benefits.

Paul Sweeney: The Minister says that public health concerns are a key driver of policy making, but, as we have seen with the case just for piloting safe drug consumption rooms, the Government stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming body of evidence that shows that public health would benefit. Is this not just another example of the Government putting the inertia of the criminal justice system ahead of an urgent public health issue, with drug-related deaths at epidemic levels? Will the Government not change the emphasis in policy making to matters of public health, rather than the inertia of the criminal justice system, which for 40 years has had an obsolete and arbitrary method of regulating drugs in this country?

Nick Hurd: I do not recognise that description of “inertia”. I have tried to give a flavour of the fact that this is a highly complex area that we keep under constant review.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Karen Bradley: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the current political situation in Northern Ireland.
Over recent weeks there have been talks involving the main political parties in Northern Ireland, particularly the two largest parties, the Democratic Unionist party and Sinn Féin, to see whether there is a basis for re-establishing the Executive. The UK Government have facilitated and supported those intensive negotiations. We have been in close touch with all the parties and have responded to requests for advice and support.
The Irish Government have also been involved, in accordance with the well established three-strand approach. I would like to place on the record my appreciation of the contribution made by the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and his team. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been consistently and closely involved, speaking to party leaders and visiting Belfast last Monday. I have continued to give her up-to-date reports as the talks have progressed.
The aim of the talks has been very clear: to bring about the re-establishment of inclusive devolved government at Stormont, which Northern Ireland has effectively been without for over 13 months. In so doing, we have been able to build on the progress made by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), whom I warmly welcome back to the House today.
In the Government’s view, all parties, including the DUP and Sinn Féin, participated in discussions seriously and in good faith, and we believe that progress towards reaching agreement on all the key substantive issues has been made. It became possible, in the light of this progress, to identify a basis for a possible agreement to allow an Executive to be formed, embracing how the parties ensured that the Executive was sustainable, how they reached a balanced and fair accommodation on the difficult issues of language and culture, and how this was reflected in a package of legislation. Many other issues were also addressed, if not always resolved.
Unfortunately, however, by last Wednesday it had become clear that the current phase of talks had reached a conclusion without such an agreement being finalised and endorsed by both parties. As I said then, it is important for everyone to reflect on the circumstances that have led to this, and on their positions both now and in the future. What is important today is for me to give some directions on the next steps.
First, as our manifesto set out at the last election, the Government believe in devolution under the terms of the 1998 Belfast agreement. We want local politicians making decisions on local matters to be accountable to a local Assembly. We need devolved government to help deliver a stronger economy, to build a stronger society, and to ensure that Northern Ireland’s voice is properly heard as we leave the European Union. In addition, we want to see all the other institutions of the agreement operating in the way that was intended.
I cannot reiterate too strongly that devolved government is in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, because it ensures that their interests and concerns  are fairly and equitably represented. It is also in the best interests of maintaining and strengthening the Union, to which the Government remain fully committed, consistent with the principle of consent. We will therefore continue to explore with the parties whether the basis for a political agreement still exists. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reaffirmed, we stand ready to introduce the legislation that would enable an Executive to be formed at the earliest opportunity. That is the Government’s clear hope and desire, and I believe that our view is shared widely on both sides of the House.
Secondly, however, matters in Northern Ireland cannot simply remain in a state of limbo. A number of challenging decisions will have to be made. Ultimately, the Government have a responsibility to ensure good governance and the continued delivery of public services. In particular, as the head of the Northern Ireland civil service has made clear, there needs to be certainty and clarity on a budget for Northern Ireland for next year as soon as possible. I intend to take steps to provide that clarity, and I will update the House as soon as I am in a position to do so. This is clearly not where I want to be, but in the absence of an Executive in Northern Ireland I have no other choice.
In the longer term, the Government will not shirk their responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to provide certainty and stability for the people of Northern Ireland, while maintaining our commitment to govern with rigorous impartiality in the interests of all of them. However, we will do that only once we are sure that all other viable options designed to restore devolved government have been properly considered, including my current statutory obligation to call an Assembly election.
In the absence of devolution, it is also right for us to consider the issue of salaries for Assembly Members. At the end of last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup received recommendations on that from Mr Trevor Reaney, a former Clerk of the Assembly. The Government will need to decide shortly on the next steps. I acknowledge the public concern about the fact that while a number of Assembly Members continue to carry out constituency and representative functions, current salaries are maintained while the Assembly is not meeting.
As for the issue of addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, the Government have manifesto commitments to consult on the implementation of the bodies set out in the 2014 Stormont House agreement, and to support the reform of inquests. I would much prefer to do that in the context of an agreement that would lead to the restoration of a devolved Executive, but I am conscious of the Government’s responsibility to make progress in this respect to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors—the people who suffered most during the troubles. We will therefore continue to proceed towards a full consultation as soon as possible, so that everyone can have their say.
As the House will know, April marks the 20th anniversary of the historic Belfast agreement. That agreement, along with its successors, has been fundamental in helping Northern Ireland to move forward from its violent past to a brighter, more secure future. The Government’s support for those agreements remains steadfast, as does our commitment to govern for everyone in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt that Northern Ireland has taken huge strides forward in the past 20 years. In my short time as Northern Ireland Secretary, I have seen a place full of wonderful talent and huge potential, but any commemorations this year will look decidedly hollow if Northern Ireland still has no functioning Government of its own. Everyone must continue to strive to see devolved government restored and to build a Northern Ireland fit for the future, and that remains the clear focus and determination of this Government.

Owen Smith: May I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement? I also thank her and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)—whom I am delighted to see back in his place in this House today—for all the efforts they have both made, alongside the Irish Government, to facilitate agreement between the parties.
All of us in this place know that these are very difficult issues, and I commend all the parties in the talks, especially the DUP and Sinn Féin, on the total engagement they have shown on behalf of their communities. I have to say that I must also commend the Secretary of State on the Herculean optimism she continues to hold to in still hoping for a deal to be done and on the clear statement that she is rejecting the calls to accede to direct rule with immediate effect. Optimism is a vital ingredient in Northern Ireland, even when it is at its most difficult to summon, so I will not criticise the Government for remaining hopeful.
But clarity and contingency planning have also been important features of the process, so people know where they are in that process and what will follow if there is no progress. On those questions, I fear that many in Northern Ireland will be little the wiser after the Secretary of State’s statement this afternoon, because she told us, in a crucial passage, that “it became possible” in the recent talks “to identify a basis for a possible agreement” to form an Executive, including “on the difficult issues of language and culture”. That is a very optimistic statement, and it is a view that has been echoed by the Irish Government and Sinn Féin, but it is hotly disputed by the DUP, whose leader told us that there was no prospect of these discussions leading to a deal.
Ambiguity has also played a very important part on occasion in the Northern Ireland process, but both accounts cannot be accurate, and I hope the Secretary of State will accept that she has a duty to provide clarity to the people of Northern Ireland, not just because they deserve to know what is going on in their peace process, but because some, including some in this House, are using this period of confusion to advance their own agendas: to undermine the Good Friday agreement, which some see as an obstacle to Brexit, or to damage the concept of power sharing, which some have never supported. That is a reckless and dangerous game to play, because we in this place must never forget that the Belfast agreement ended a conflict that led to 3,500 lives being lost. Nor should we forget—especially those who are so quick to assert that the Brexit referendum is to be respected—that the Belfast agreement itself was copper-fastened with its own referendums, north and south, and they too must be respected and protected.
So I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that the Government’s support for the agreement remains steadfast, and I ask her to confirm that she sees the Good Friday agreement as the only viable long-term option for the peaceful governance of Northern Ireland, and that the Government believe that its unique form of power sharing is indispensable to the agreement.
Coming back to last week and the events in Belfast, a simple way for the Government to clear up this confusion is to publish precisely where there was agreement and where the gaps remain—not in order to apportion blame, but to provide greater reassurance that progress has been made over the 13 months. So will the Secretary of State commit to providing further detail and to publishing some of those details?
One area where the Secretary of State has offered some further clarity today is on the possibility of a fresh election in Northern Ireland, and she should know that that would be met with glacial enthusiasm. Why does the Secretary of State think there is potentially an advantage in another election, the fifth in three years, in Northern Ireland? What would it achieve? Although she does have a statutory duty to call one at some point, that has been true since 27 March last year, and she and her predecessor have resisted the temptation to date.
The Secretary of State has also said that she is considering how best to give some certainty about the budget in Northern Ireland. We understand and accept that, and urge only that she consults properly with the parties, so that we can ensure maximum acceptance of, and agreements on, those budget allocations as part of the contingency planning. I hope she can commit to that too today.
Finally, may I ask the Secretary of State to consider what she will do to take forward some of the pressing issues facing Northern Ireland if her optimism is misplaced and a deal cannot be struck? It is not just on the issue of MLAs’ pay that people in Northern Ireland want to see action. Vital questions on the treatment of victims, both of the troubles and of historical institutional abuse, need to be resolved not just with consultation, but with legislation. These people have been waiting for far too long, so will she commit to looking at that in the absence of a deal?
Will the Secretary of State also commit to taking forward issues of human rights and social justice that are enjoyed naturally in other parts of the UK but denied to our citizens in Northern Ireland? In particular, can she confirm that one area of discussion between the parties was on the issue of equal marriage, and that agreement was reached to take matters forward through a private Member’s Bill in Stormont? In the absence of a Stormont Bill, would she consider legislating similarly to extend equal marriage rights to Northern Ireland? We believe that she should, and we will support her if she does so. To be clear, a Labour Government would legislate on that if Stormont could not do so.
Political problems are nothing new in Northern Ireland, but the current impasse has left the Northern Irish people without an accountable Government for almost 400 days. This is a profound crisis, and the Government have a profound duty to try to resolve it, and to preserve the Good Friday agreement and the principle of power sharing. We will continue to support the Government in  trying to resolve the crisis, and we will support them on legislation wherever it is necessary, but we will hold them to account to preserve the Good Friday agreement in its spirit and its letter.

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and for the tone of them. It is important that we in this House show unity and a unified front when it comes to resolving these issues and re-establishing devolved government in Northern Ireland. If both sides of the House work together with that purpose in mind, we will have all the more reason to hope that that can be achieved. He asked about a number of matters, and I will try to address as many of them as I can.
On the topic of legacy, to which I made reference in my statement, we have been working with the parties and the Victims’ Commissioner on a consultation programme. As I have said, I would very much prefer to do that in the context of devolved government in Stormont, but we clearly have a responsibility to the victims of the troubles, and it is absolutely right that we should deal with that. We will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the matter of legacy is dealt with, but as I say, we would much rather that it was done in the context of having devolved government in Stormont. We are committed to the institutions as set out in the Stormont House agreement, and we will be consulting on that.
We are also committed to the Belfast agreement, as I said in my statement, and to all successor agreements. The position in the Conservative party manifesto at the last election, and the position of this Government, is that the Belfast agreement is the right approach. It has led to great success for Northern Ireland, and more success can come. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Brexit. The joint report that was signed before Christmas makes specific reference to a commitment to the Belfast agreement and to respecting the institutions in the agreement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the talks, and about what the British Government would publish. I want to make it clear that the talks that we have facilitated—we did not impose them—have been between the parties, particularly the two main parties. Therefore, any documentation or anything that has been written down is a matter for the parties; it is not a matter for the British Government. He also asked about an election. I have a statutory duty as Secretary of State to call an election, but I want to ensure that we have exhausted every avenue and every viable option to re-establish devolved government at Stormont. That is what the Government want to see, and that is what we are working towards. We will do all we can to achieve that, and I thank him for his support in that regard.

James Brokenshire: It is good to be back, and I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their kind, generous and supportive comments over the past few weeks. What is not so welcome, however, is the continuing lack of devolved government in Northern Ireland, which it desperately needs. I commend the Secretary of State for all her work and for her efforts in seeking to bring the parties together. I also commend the Irish Government for their work.
I commend what the Secretary of State said about the Government’s commitment the Belfast agreement. That is our cornerstone; it is the bedrock of what we do.  I also commend what she said about the troubles and the legacy of the past, and about making progress on the consultation. I hope that she will agree, however, that we need to remain firmly focused on restoring devolved government. Rather than talking up direct rule, we should continue to focus on talking out the remaining issues that lie between the two parties, and I hope that she will agree that we need to retain that focus in all we do if we are to restore devolved government and give Northern Ireland the bright, positive future that I know its people want to see.

Karen Bradley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and questions, and for his approach. He was an outstanding Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he is very much missed in Northern Ireland. I do not think I have been to a single event since being appointed Secretary of State where he has not been mentioned in the warmest and most generous terms. I am fully aware that his are big shoes for me to fill.
I agree with all that my right hon. Friend says about the importance of restoring devolved government for the people of Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland elected the Members of the Legislative Assembly, and those MLAs need to be in Stormont. That fabulous, wonderful Parliament building is empty and bereft, and it needs to be filled with the people who were elected to fill it, taking decisions on behalf of their constituents for all the people in Northern Ireland.

Patrick Grady: I join others in welcoming the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), on his return to the Chamber.
I also thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement, but we share the disappointment we are hearing that, although there has been some progress to report, there has not been enough. We welcome the continued public commitment of the UK and Irish Governments to the Good Friday agreement, noting, as she does, that we are approaching its 20th anniversary.
The Good Friday agreement and the institutions it established were endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, and the preservation and restoration of those institutions should be the focus of all the parties and interlocutors involved in these vital talks. We also note the Irish Government’s firm position that the agreement, and its subsequent agreements, must be implemented in full, and in that context the Irish Government have reiterated that they do not want to see the introduction of direct rule in Northern Ireland.
I ask the Secretary of State to clarify her timetable for the next steps she has outlined. In particular, given the absence of talks, under what circumstances would she consider calling fresh elections to the Assembly? What consideration has she given to convening the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which was established under strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his statement of commitment to the Belfast agreement. On my priorities now, in the past few weeks I have focused on the talks process. I still continue to work and communicate with all parties to see what we can do to re-establish discussion and to help the parties get to an accommodation that will enable a  devolved Executive to be established. My priority in the immediate term is clearly the budget, as we need to make sure that the dedicated civil servants and public servants in Northern Ireland have the certainty they need to continue delivering public services.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Of course this is an extremely important statement, upon which a further 27 hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind the House that there are two further ministerial statements to follow that might be considered to be on chunky matters eliciting substantial interest, and several people have applied to speak in the debate subsequent to that. There is therefore a premium on brevity, and I appeal to colleagues not to offer us mini speeches, which is not uncommon in these circumstances, but rather pithy inquiries to which I know the Secretary of State will succinctly reply. We can be led in this exercise by someone of no lesser distinction than the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Theresa Villiers.

Theresa Villiers: None of us should underestimate the difficulty of reaching accommodation on issues of culture and identity that have divided people for centuries. Will the Secretary of State urge the parties to come together to try to find a balanced package that reflects the cultural sensitivities of all sides of the community in modern Northern Ireland?

Karen Bradley: I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and hers are another pair of shoes that I endeavour to fill. She was an excellent Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She went through a number of these processes, so she knows only too well how these things operate. I agree wholeheartedly with what she says.

Nigel Dodds: I join others in warmly welcoming the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) back to the Chamber. I wish him well.
As the Secretary of State knows, we of course stand ready to form an Executive tomorrow, on the basis of no preconditions and on the basis of the programme for Government that was agreed with Sinn Féin back in December, before Sinn Féin walked out and set preconditions—political demands—that they want to see implemented before they get back into the Executive.
The fact that there is no Executive is not the fault of the Democratic Unionist party. Indeed, it is not the fault of the smaller parties, either—I make that very clear. But in the absence of devolved government, now is the time for the Secretary of State to do right by all the people of Northern Ireland.
I have just come from a meeting of a group of charities and others who want somebody to lobby—a Minister to argue with—about mental health funding in Northern Ireland. There have been no Ministers for 13 months. That cannot continue. Secretary of State, it is time to set a budget. Let the efforts for devolution continue—yes, we want to see devolution—but it is a dereliction of duty to continue without a budget and without ministerial decisions. It is time to get on with it.

Karen Bradley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his assertion of the DUP’s commitment to devolved government, which is warmly welcomed by everyone. He and I have had and will continue to have discussions about the budget. The shadow Secretary of State asked whether I would be consulting the parties about the budget. I have committed to do that and will ensure that I work with the right hon. Gentleman and his party’s Members on that. He fervently summed up the reasons why devolved government is so important.

Andrew Murrison: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement and warmly welcome seeing my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) back in his place and in fine form.
The head of the Northern Ireland civil service said to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 24 January:
“It will be incredibly difficult for us if we do not have budget certainty by 8 February.”
It is now 20 February. What will the Secretary of State now do to set a budget and therefore the political direction that Northern Ireland so needs?

Karen Bradley: I thank the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. As I said in my statement, I am now working to ensure that we get certainty for civil servants in Northern Ireland—those dedicated public servants—and I will return to the House when I have further information.

Ivan Lewis: The Secretary of State was absolutely right to say that she was not willing to conduct a running commentary on the talks, but now that they have collapsed once again, should she not publish the basis on which the talks failed yet again? The people of Northern Ireland have a right to know the areas of difference and what still needs to be resolved.

Karen Bradley: As I explained in my response to the shadow Secretary of State, I was not present at the discussions held between the two parties. I facilitated them, but I was not present during them. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to speculate on exactly where the parties reached in discussing their concerns. It is a matter of public record, however, that I have said that the concerns related to the very difficult issues of language and culture and the sustainability of the Executive.

Bob Stewart: Would there be any role for the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly if direct rule, which nobody in this House wants, were to be instituted?

Karen Bradley: Some Opposition Members were Ministers during the previous period of direct rule—the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) will be asking a question shortly—and it was clear then that there was no role for Members of the Assembly at that point.

Sammy Wilson: It is clear from the talks and their failure that the structures of the Belfast agreement have given a power of veto and blackmail to Sinn Féin. Given that there will be no giving in to that blackmail, will the Secretary of State  recognise that, in the absence of the ability to set up an Executive, the only way forward for proper governance in Northern Ireland is for her to start taking some of the decisions that are important for the day-to-day running of Northern Ireland?

Karen Bradley: As I said in my statement, I want to see devolved government in Northern Ireland, I want the politicians elected by people in Northern Ireland to be able to take their places and represent them in the Assembly, and I want an Executive in place. That is what I am focused on in trying to deliver that as best we can, as I think Members on both sides of the House have stated.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State set out what role, if any, the smaller parties played in the talks last week?

Karen Bradley: All five parties were involved in the talks, including some roundtable talks. However, the clear point is that, for an Executive to be formed, the two large parties need to reach an accommodation. That is what we were working towards, and what I would like to happen in the near future.

David Hanson: In the welcome absence of direct rule, of which I had personal experience as a Minister, will the Secretary of State tell the House how she will bring forward the budget, what form the approval of that budget will take and whether, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked, Assembly Members will make any contribution to the discussions of the proposals in it?

Karen Bradley: I know that the right hon. Gentleman served as a Minister during the last period of direct rule. I have been led to believe that there was a small incident involving a football match—Wales versus Northern Ireland—when he possibly found it difficult to know which side to support. I have said that I will come back to the House on the budget.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I know that for her, as for me, the priority will be to ensure that the peace process keeps on track. Will she therefore outline in some detail what exactly direct rule would mean for the people of Northern Ireland and for this House?

Karen Bradley: My focus is on getting devolved government back up and running because people want to know that their elected politicians—the people they have elected locally—will make the decisions for them. Those of us who believe in devolution, be it locally in our constituencies or in the devolved Administrations, know that, when local people make decisions, they are more representative of what voters want. That is why it is so important to get devolved government back up and running.

Vernon Coaker: I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing commitment to the Good Friday agreement, but does she agree that being more open and transparent about what happened in the talks—notwithstanding the fact that she says that she cannot do that because they were conducted by the Democratic  Unionist party and Sinn Féin—and explaining to the public the problems and where the parties failed to agree might mean that they were in a position to support more properly the leaders of their respective communities who are trying to reach a deal?

Karen Bradley: As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on what happened behind closed doors at a meeting between the two parties. They are now working to see what they can do to come back to the table, and that is what I am encouraging.

Edward Argar: I join in the tributes to my right hon. Friend for her determination and work on this issue.
Northern Ireland has enjoyed significant economic success in recent years, largely down to the dynamism of the people of Northern Ireland, but also to the conditions that effective, devolved, power-sharing government created. Does she share my view that certainty about a budget and the restoration of a devolved power-sharing Government are the most effective ways in which to ensure that that economic success continues?

Karen Bradley: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have said that I will come to the House about the budget. Last Friday, I met business representatives in Belfast and they were unanimous that they needed their politicians to form an Executive so that they could encourage investment, create jobs and wealth and build on the fantastic success story that is Northern Ireland.

Gregory Campbell: My party remains committed to total restoration of an Executive on a fair and equitable basis, and I commend the Secretary of State for what she has said. As was mentioned earlier, the head of the civil service said that it would be incredibly difficult for us if we did not have budget certainty by 8 February—we are now two weeks beyond that. Does she therefore agree that the important matters that divide us are not life and death matters that require a budget to resolve them? She has the power to set one—when will she do it?

Karen Bradley: As I said, I need to consult the parties about the budget and I will return to the House at the earliest opportunity with confirmation of my decision on that.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the Secretary of State’s continuing optimism and urge her to press on, not least because, with Brexit on the horizon, Northern Ireland needs one voice, provided by a functioning Executive, to make it the best Brexit deal not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole of the UK. Does she agree that, on this issue, time is of the essence?

Karen Bradley: I do agree with my hon. Friend. We need to make sure Northern Ireland’s voice is heard properly through the proper processes in the Brexit process, and that requires a devolved Government.

Conor McGinn: The British and Irish Governments are the guardians of the Good Friday agreement, but its owners are the people of Ireland, north and south, who overwhelmingly endorsed it in referendums. Does the Secretary of State agree that  it cannot be usurped by this House, by any party or by any individual in it, and that she will work for its full implementation, alongside the Irish Government?

Karen Bradley: I do agree.

Philip Hollobone: By how much is my right hon. Friend going to cut their pay?

Karen Bradley: A quick answer deserves another quick question, does it not, Mr Speaker? Mr Trevor Reaney has made recommendations on the pay of Members of the Legislative Assembly, and I am considering those at the moment.

Kate Hoey: The people of Northern Ireland will be disappointed in the Secretary of State’s statement. Of course they would like the Executive back, but what they want more than anything is a budget, and agreement on reform of the health service and education, which were all agreed before Sinn Féin walked out. Why is she still dilly-dallying, and waiting and waiting? What does she actually think is going to be achieved in the next month?

Karen Bradley: I am exploring every possible window of opportunity to get devolved government back up and running, while looking at those important decisions that need to be taken. I will revert to the House on those matters.

Sylvia Hermon: I warmly commend the Secretary of State for her calm and positive tone in her statement today and her response to questions. I am very pleased that the British Government have not been bounced into moving to direct rule. The people of Northern Ireland want their Assembly up and running—it is their Assembly—and they were extremely disappointed and angry last week when the talks collapsed. I am not pointing the finger of blame, because that is not going to help anybody, but the people of Northern Ireland will also be extremely angry that MLAs are receiving their full salary. What possible justification can there be for paying them a full salary 13 months after collapsing the Assembly?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. My predecessor did ask Trevor Reaney to look at this matter. I will be considering the recommendations and will come back to the House shortly.

Chris Leslie: Does the Secretary of State share my anxieties at the noises—the drum beat—coming from some of the hard Brexit quarters in the debate about how the Good Friday agreement has “failed” and “outlived its use”? Will she take this opportunity to reassert the Government’s view that nothing—no Brexit ideology and no attempt to justify instituting a new border—should jeopardise this carefully brokered peace settlement and that the Government are fully, 100% behind the Good Friday agreement?

Karen Bradley: I can confirm that the Government are 100% behind the Belfast agreement and that it was specifically referenced in the joint report as being of great relevance and importance to everybody in Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Edwards: The common structures of the EU provided the basis of a peace in Ireland via the Good Friday agreement. Is not the reality that the British Government have failed to recognise that in their Brexit positioning and that maintaining the agreement has been a secondary consideration?

Karen Bradley: I do not agree with that assessment.

Joanna Cherry: As has been said, in the past 48 hours, a couple of Members of this House and a British MEP have attacked the Good Friday agreement as “failed” and “unsustainable”. Will the Secretary of State join the Tanaiste, Ireland’s Deputy Prime Minister, in condemning such language as “irresponsible”?

Karen Bradley: As I say, I can only set out the Government’s position, which is that we fully support the Belfast agreement.

Mike Kane: A young generation in Ireland, north and south, and on the mainland have no recollection of violence because of the Good Friday agreement. Therefore, does the Secretary of State agree that those who are playing fast and loose with that agreement for their own terms over Brexit should not be doing so?

Karen Bradley: I agree that people do not remember what it was like; my children visited Northern Ireland recently and were astonished to see that there are still walls between communities. That was a shock to them because they had no idea about what the troubles were like and what it was like for people living there. The people of Northern Ireland have come so far in 20 years, and it is vital that we restore devolved government and maintain the Belfast agreement.

Paul Girvan: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. In the light of the failure of the talks and what has ultimately happened, the vacuum has been filled by those who wish to bring about more Dublin interference in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State assure us that Dublin will have no say in the running and governance of Northern Ireland?

Karen Bradley: We have been clear that the three-stranded approach has applied in everything we have been doing. Strand 1 issues clearly do not involve the Irish Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that the best way to ensure the protection of the Union and that the people of Northern Ireland have their say is the restoration of devolved government in Stormont.

Gerard Killen: I urge the Secretary of State to get off the fence in  respect of same-sex marriage in Northern Ireland. We simply would not tolerate such discrimination against any other group of UK citizens. It is not acceptable that the Government continue to be complicit in discrimination against LGBT people in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State support efforts in this place to bring forward change?

Karen Bradley: This is a devolved matter. I was proud to vote for same-sex marriage for my constituents in this House when we had that vote, but I did not vote to impose same-sex marriage in Scotland. It is not the job of this Government to introduce legislation; it is for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected politicians to make the decision.

Christine Jardine: Given the Secretary of State’s stated determination to reinstate devolved government in Northern Ireland, does she agree that perhaps the time has come for the appointment of an external mediator to chair the power-sharing talks?

Karen Bradley: I have been clear that I rule nothing out. Everything is under review and I will look at all viable options to ensure that we get devolved government back up and running.

Gavin Robinson: In situations such as this, we will always get verbal excess or an aspirational wheeze from some of the participants. Will the Secretary of State indicate clearly that nowhere in the Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreement, the legislation that underpins them or the constitution of this country is there provision for joint authority?

Karen Bradley: I fully respect the Belfast agreement and the successor agreements. We adhere to the three-stranded approach very strictly.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Will she outline the timeline for the imposition of direct rule as it is legislated for in this place, to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland do not continue to be led by the nose by Sinn Féin, a party that does not have the interests of Northern Ireland at heart but seeks only the destruction of the state of Northern Ireland in an attempt to secure an unwanted and unworkable Ireland that is never, never, never going to happen?

Karen Bradley: My priority, focus and energies are on the restoration of devolved government in line with the Belfast agreement. That is what I will be focusing on and that is what I am determined to achieve, alongside addressing the urgent issues, including the budget, that need to be dealt with in the very near future.

AID SECTOR: SAFEGUARDING

Penny Mordaunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on my Department’s response to the sexual abuse and exploitation perpetrated by charity workers in Haiti in 2011, and on the measures we are taking to improve safeguarding across the aid sector.
Let me start by paying tribute to Sean O’Neill of The Times and to the two sets of whistleblowers—those in 2011 and later—for bringing this case to light. On 9 February, The Times reported that when certain Oxfam staff were in Haiti in 2011, they had abused their positions of trust and paid for sex with local women. The incidents happened in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake in 2010 that killed hundreds of thousands of people and left millions more homeless and reliant on aid for basic needs such as food and shelter. That is shocking, but it is not by itself what has caused such concern about Oxfam’s safeguarding—it was what Oxfam then did.
In chaotic and desperate situations, the very best safeguarding procedures and practices must be put in to place to prevent harm, but when organisations fail to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing that occur, it undermines trust and sends a message that sexual exploitation and abuse are tolerated. We cannot prevent sexual exploitation and abuse if we do not demonstrate zero tolerance. In such circumstances, we must be able to trust organisations not only to do all they can to prevent harm, but to report and follow up incidents of wrongdoing when they occur.
In that duty, Oxfam failed, under the watch of Barbara Stocking and Penny Lawrence. They did not provide a full report to the Charity Commission. They did not provide a full report to their donors. They did not provide any report to prosecuting authorities. In my view, they misled, quite possibly deliberately, even as their report concluded that their investigation could not rule out the allegation that some of the women involved were actually children. They did not think it was necessary to report that to the police either in Haiti or in the country of origin of those accountable. I believe that their motivation appears to be the protection of the organisation’s reputation. They put that before those they were there to help and protect, which is a complete betrayal of trust, a betrayal of those who sent them there—the British people—and a betrayal of all those Oxfam staff and volunteers who put the people they serve first.
Last week, I met Mark Goldring, chief executive of Oxfam, and Caroline Thomson, Oxfam’s chair of trustees. I made three demands of them: that they fully co-operate with the Haitian authorities, handing over all evidence they hold; that they report staff members involved in the incident to their respective national Governments; and that they make clear how they will handle any forthcoming allegations around safeguarding, historic or live. I stressed that, for me, holding to account those who made the decision not to report, and to let those potentially guilty of criminal activity slip away, was a necessity in winning back confidence in Oxfam.
As a result of those discussions, Oxfam has agreed to withdraw from bidding for any new UK Government funding until the Department for International  Development is satisfied that it can meet the high safeguarding standards we expect of our partners. I will take a decision on current programming after 26 February —at that time, I will have further information that will help me to decide whether I need to adjust how that is currently delivered.
Given the concerns about the wider sector this case has raised, I have written to every UK charity working overseas that receives UK aid—192 organisations—insisting that they spell out the steps they are taking to ensure that their safeguarding policies are fully in place, and that they confirm that they have referred all concerns they have about specific cases and individuals to the relevant authorities, including prosecuting authorities. I have set the deadline of 26 February for replies. We are also conducting in parallel an exercise to make clear our standards to all non-UK charity partners— 393 organisations in total—and to all our suppliers, including those in the private sector, which number more than 500 organisations, and to remind them of their obligations. We are doing the same with all multilateral partners.
The UK Government reserve the right to take whatever decisions about present or future funding for Oxfam or any other organisation as we deem necessary. We have been very clear that we will not work with any organisation that does not live up to the high standards on safeguarding and protection that we require. We will share this approach with other Governments Departments responsible for ODA spend. Although that work is not yet complete, it is clear from the Charity Commission reporting data, and lack of it from some organisations, that cultural change is needed to ensure that all that can be done to stop sexual exploitation in the aid sector is being done.
We need to take some practical steps and set up our own systems now—we should not wait for the United Nations to take action. My Department and the Charity Commission will hold a safeguarding summit on 5 March, where we will meet UK international development charities, regulators and experts to confront safeguarding failures and agree practical measures, such as an aid worker accreditation scheme that we in the UK can use. Later in the year, we will take this programme of work to a wide-ranging global safeguarding conference to drive action across the whole international aid sector. I am pleased to say that the US, Canada, Netherlands and others have already agreed to support our goals of improving safeguarding standards across the sector. The UK is not waiting for others to act and will take the lead.
We have been speaking to colleagues across Government and beyond about what more we can do to stop exploitation and abuse in the UN and the broader multilateral system. The message from us to all parts of the UN is clear: they can either get their house in order, or they can prepare to carry out their good work without our money.
We welcome the UN’s announcement on 14 February that it does not and will not claim immunity for sexual abuse cases. That sends a clear signal that the UN is not a soft target, but we must hold it to account for that. Further actions we have taken in the past week include the creation of a new safeguarding unit. We have also promoted our whistleblowing and reporting phone line to encourage anyone with information on safeguarding issues to contact us. We have appointed Sheila Drew Smith, a recent member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, who has agreed to bring her expertise and her challenge to support my Department’s ambition on  safeguarding. She will report to me directly. We have asked to meet leaders of the audit profession to discuss what more they can do to provide independent assurance over safeguarding to the organisations that DFID partners with globally.
I have held my own Department to the same scrutiny that I am demanding of others. I have asked the Department to go through our centrally held human resources systems and our fraud and whistleblowing records as far back as they exist. I am assured that there are no centrally recorded cases that were dealt with incorrectly. Separately we are reviewing any locally reported allegations of sexual misconduct involving DFID staff and delivery partners. To date, our review of staff cases has looked at 75% of our teams across DFID and will complete within a fortnight. Our investigations are still ongoing. If, during this process, we discover any historical or current cases that have not been dealt with appropriately, I will report on our handling of them to Parliament.
DFID, other Government Departments and the National Crime Agency work closely together when serious allegations of potentially criminal activity in partner organisations are brought to our attention. We are strengthening this work, as the new strategy director at the NCA will take on a lead role for the aid sector. I am calling on anyone who has any concerns about abuse or exploitation in the sector to come forward and report them to our counter-fraud and whistleblowing team. Details are on the DFID website and all communications will be treated in complete confidence. Later today, I have further meetings with the Defence Secretary regarding peacekeeping troops, and the Secretary of State at Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regarding the charity sector.[Official Report, 21 February 2018, Vol. 636, c. 3MC.]
My absolute priority is to keep the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people safe from harm. It is utterly despicable that sexual exploitation and abuse continue to exist in the aid sector. The recent reports should be a wake-up call to us all. Now is the time for us to act. But as we do, we should note the good people working across the world in the sector—saving lives, often by endangering their own—and all those, from fundraisers to trustees, who make that work possible. Since news of this scandal broke just a week ago, UK aid and aid workers have helped to vaccinate 850,000 children against polio. We should recognise that that good work can only be done with the support of the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

Kate Osamor: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and thank her for advance sight of it. I join her in utter disgust at the stories that have emerged in recent days of incidents of sexual abuse and exploitation, and of the appalling culture of silence.
Let me say very clearly that, for the Haitian women and girls fighting to survive an earthquake who were exploited and abused, it is just not good enough; for the British public and loyal Oxfam supporters who donate time, money, taxes and support, it is just not good enough; and for those of us in this House who support charities such as Oxfam to save lives in crisis and to tackle the root causes of injustice, it is just not good enough. We need reform.
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has written to taxpayer-funded charities to ask for written assurance that they have safeguards in place, but I am not convinced that that will do the job. We need each charity to tell us how many cases they are aware of, how they have been resolved and whether there could be others. We need a full, sector-wide picture to be reported back to Parliament. The inquiry must target not only UK charities funded by DFID, but private suppliers, UN agencies, non-governmental organisations in developing countries and charities funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK embassies and other Government Departments. The Secretary of State says that she has asked those agencies for assurance. Will she tell us the timeframe for that?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s swift commitment to a safeguarding summit on 5 March. Out of that summit must now come a real commitment to reform: tightening international criminal regulations; establishing a global passport or register for humanitarian workers; and setting up an independent regulator or a centre of excellence. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly when later on this year that will happen, so that the House will know when to expect to see real reforms? Reform must not just improve tools and procedures. Our aid agencies are supposed to set an example and challenge the abuse of power—always, everywhere. Reform must also involve aid agencies themselves looking at their culture, redistributing power, challenging its abuses, and putting people before their reputation. This is what aid agencies must now do, and a Labour Government will help them to do it.
Over the past 10 days, some have tried to use this scandal and weaponise it to call for the UK to end its commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid. That is absolutely shameful. Our aid budget does not just save millions of lives: it is also our best chance to stop sexual abuse and exploitation. Taking Syria alone, in the first half of 2017, UK aid supported 4,687 survivors of sexual violence. Last year, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone, the UK got to help up to 1,979 survivors of sexual violence within the first 72 hours. We owe it to those women and girls to keep some perspective. When an abuse scandal hits Westminster, the Church or the Army, nobody seriously suggests shutting the whole thing down. So let us root out the bad apples, focus on fixing the system, and have the conviction to stand up proudly for the good that UK aid can still do, which, even at this darkest moment, far exceeds the evil.
The Secretary of State has said that she believes in aid, but I have not heard her call out those shameful opportunists, including her own predecessor and many in her own party, who have jumped on this scandal and attacked aid. Well, if she will not, then I will, because it is wrong. It does an injustice to our country and it will distract us from what really needs to happen—reforms that are badly, badly needed.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for the support that she has given to the sector, for her recognition of the good work that does actually go on and for her support—ongoing, I hope—for the practical measures that we are taking forward. There are many things that we can do to influence others, but we need to take some practical action. We need, at the very least, to get the UK aid sector in order, with a catalyst effect on others  in also raising their game. In addition to the accreditation system, this may include, for example, co-ordinating our requirements in our funding agreements with third parties. That is what will help to drive change.
I do not recognise the caricature that the hon. Lady paints of my predecessor. In fact, I should pay tribute to my predecessor for what she did to try to raise this with the UN. That is important, but it is also important that we work with the component parts of the UN. Ultimately, as I said in my statement, if we cannot be assured of the practices within these organisations, we should not fund them. That is the sanction that we have. I pay tribute to the other Secretaries of State in the Department who set up the systems that I am now able to interrogate to provide confidence to this House and to the public.
Let me turn to the other points that the hon. Lady raised. The activities that I have outlined and that I am undertaking are only part of what is going on. The Charity Commission is the body that is taking a lead, as it has been since we beefed up its responsibilities in 2016 to take a greater role in these issues, with charities having to report to it the numbers of cases involved. I am not going to duplicate that work. However, I want to see that work improving and to see that, where the commission has concerns, they are properly reported to the National Crime Agency. That needs to work better. The Charity Commission is obviously doing its own investigation, and it is right that it takes the lead on that.
For organisations based in the UK, I have set the deadline of 26 February. For other organisations that are not based in the UK, it will be in a fortnight. We need to move swiftly on this. Although I am asking for written confirmation about organisations’ policies and any historical or live cases, that is an important step in allowing people to come forward now if they have any outstanding issues.
The safeguarding summit on 5 March will have a UK focus, with our own charities and organisations, but international partners have also asked if they can attend. We have not finalised a date for the follow-up conference, but we want to do it swiftly. We will be working with other nations to find a suitable time to get the right people in the room. It is important that we do not just talk about this but make some agreements and put some things into action.
I have not heard people attack the aid budget over this. I actually think people have shown maturity in recognising the seriousness of this issue. This is not an event that should cause us not to give money to charity, not to carry out aid work and not to vote some of our budget towards that. That is the approach I have heard, and I hope it will continue as we carry out this important work.

Andrew Mitchell: It is clear that my right hon. Friend has handled these shattering circumstances extremely well and correctly. Can she confirm that none of the trustees or senior management at Oxfam at the time of those dreadful events is still in post today? Will she join me in thanking the overwhelming majority of wonderful people of deep integrity who work in the development sector, often at some considerable risk to themselves, for the remarkable work they do in very difficult places, which reflects so well on Britain and our international development efforts?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he says. We should be proud of those people and what they do. I have made it clear to Oxfam that we cannot have confidence in an organisation that still has sitting on its board or among its employees people whose judgment was so fundamentally flawed. I note that following that discussion, Penny Lawrence left the organisation. The Charity Commission is conducting its own investigation, and I know it will be particularly concerned about the role of trustees. I am not going to call for resignations. We need to investigate and look at the facts, and we need to hold the individuals responsible for this accountable.

Chris Law: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. The Scottish National party is horrified at these revelations. Any form of sexual misconduct is completely and utterly unacceptable. Today’s appearance by Oxfam and others before the International Development Committee has left many questions unanswered. There needs therefore to be a fuller inquiry into the reported sickening events in Haiti and others emerging by the day. Allegations have now been made against Médecins sans Frontières, the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee. We hear a lot of apologies, but we need deeds to match those words.
Sadly, a picture has now emerged of a culture of bullying, harassment, sexual abuse and racism among agencies around the world. All the good and essential work of this vital sector has been deeply damaged by not just what has happened but the way it has been dealt with. We heard today that many individuals responsible for these appalling activities were not dealt with and instead were often just passed on to other agencies and charities. There clearly has to be accountability and safeguards put in place to rebuild that trust. Wherever we see this type of behaviour, whether in the aid sector, Hollywood or politics, it must not be tolerated.
It is deeply concerning that some members of this Government have not shied away from their desire to see the aid budget cut. This scandal must not be used by the Secretary of State as a tool for cutting aid funding. I therefore call on her to confirm today in this House unequivocally that organisations will not have funds unduly stripped from them as they go about their vital work in some of the most vulnerable communities on this earth.
The international aid sector does fantastic work, and we cannot let this scandal overshadow the overwhelmingly positive actions done and support given around the world by many. However, we need to get to the root of these events and make sure, with robust safeguards, that they never happen again, or if they do, that action is taken immediately.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he says. We should note that the Charity Commission, as well as its other work, is liaising with its counterparts in the devolved nations, which will be part of any such work.
It was this Government who brought in the 0.7% target. We think that is right and has helped, and that other nations around the world look to us as a development superpower. If we want to meet the sustainable development goals, we need to ensure that we spend that money  really well. I want to get the money to work harder: there are always improvements we can drive. We are committed to the 0.7% target.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point, I will wait until I have information back, not just about Oxfam, but about all other delivery partners to which I may transfer work. Until I have back that information, I will not make decisions about current programming, because the welfare of beneficiaries and the safety of staff in the field are my prime concerns.

James Duddridge: I thank the Secretary of State for the truly amazing work she is doing. That is quite often said in this House, but having sat through three and a half hours in the Select Committee listening to Oxfam, I came away realising how appalling the situation really is. May I, however, urge her not to leap into action too quickly, given, horrifically, that we have no understanding at the moment of the size of the problem? It is quite possible that predatory individuals, including predatory paedophiles, actually go into international situations, as they go into domestic situations, to abuse others. While I do not want to taint the people who go into such professions either in the UK or internationally, we may very well be on the precipice of a much bigger problem than simply Oxfam and a few others.

Penny Mordaunt: I note my hon. Friend’s concerns, but I think we do need to act now. This has obviously been triggered by a specific case, but we have known for a long time that this is a problem. It is a difficult problem to crack, but we have to start making moves to crack it. Having spoken to my opposite numbers in other nations, I can tell him that they are of the same mind. By getting to grips with this—putting in measures that will not by themselves solve the problem, but will help—we will also send a message to predatory individuals that the aid sector is not a safe haven for them.

Stephen Twigg: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I commend her for her swift action over the past 10 days. This morning, the Select Committee decided that we will hold a full inquiry into this issue. Does she agree with me that as well as Oxfam having to get its house in order and the action that DFID needs to take, international action will be crucial if we are to prevent another such crisis ever happening again in the future?

Penny Mordaunt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for the hearing this morning and for the inquiry that he is going to undertake, which will help the situation dramatically. He is right: we can get our own house in order and take a lead on this, but, ultimately, the component parts of the UN and other organisations in the international community must also follow suit. We also have to tackle the other enormous issues on the fringe of what we are discussing—in particular, UN peacekeeping troops. These are not easy things to crack, but we have to crack them.

Maria Miller: Many thousands of incredible people work in the aid sector, helping some of the most vulnerable people on the planet, and it is the betrayal of trust in organisations such as Oxfam  that I think has caused the current outcry. Not only has Oxfam tried to cover up sex crimes by its workers, but in doing so it has shown a flagrant disregard for the criminal justice system in Haiti. Should the UK Government ever be working with an organisation that thinks it is above the law in one of the poorest countries in the world, such as Haiti?

Penny Mordaunt: This case is truly shocking and it may be that prosecutions result from what has gone on. We need to take stock of the sector, which is why I commissioned the review into what our partners are doing. It is also absolutely vital that we are very clear with any organisation we work with about what we expect from them. We often say “zero tolerance”, but we have to live that and mean that, and there have to be consequences when people breach the requirements we have of them. I said last week in Stockholm at the End Violence against Children conference that there is no organisation too big, or our work with them too complex, that we will not withhold funding from them if they do not meet those standards.

Richard Burden: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. She will know that this morning’s Select Committee meeting highlighted not only the really grotesque actions of a number of Oxfam staff in Haiti in 2011, but the fact that the whole sector has been far too slow to address the issue of sexual abuse and exploitation. Does she agree that at this stage three things are important: first, there has to be full accountability; secondly, action needs to be taken internationally, and an international register of humanitarian workers would help with that; and, thirdly, recognising the vital work the vast majority of aid workers do, nothing must be done to jeopardise UK aid to some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world?

Penny Mordaunt: Yes, yes and yes.

Anna Soubry: I commend the Secretary of State for her statement and gently say to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) that this is not an issue on which anybody should be seeking to make any form of political capital. This is not the subject of party politics; this is an appalling situation. About a year ago, I went to the Zaatari refugee camp as a guest of Oxfam. I saw the great work that so many of its workers do. Those workers represent the majority of people who work for our great British charities. Can the Secretary of State assure us all that the action she has to take—nobody disputes that—will not affect the beneficiaries of that work and that their interests will be absolutely paramount?

Penny Mordaunt: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. That is why, although Oxfam has said it will not bid for any new funding, I have paused what I am going to do with current programming until I have assurances about every other partner operating in the same theatres. I will then take a decision on whether I can have confidence in what Oxfam is currently doing in those locations, or whether I need to adjust how we are doing that aid delivery.

Stephen Doughty: I completely share the horror and revulsion about the revelations. I praise the Secretary of State for  the very robust and comprehensive way in which she has handled the situation over the past 10 days. As a former Oxfam staff member, I feel let down. I know that many current Oxfam staff members feel completely let down, too, both by the actions of those who carried out these terrible incidents and by the failure to deal with them robustly at the time. The Secretary of State mentioned the situation regarding UN peacekeeping. That area has long been on public record as one where there has been serious sexual abuse and exploitation, with the use of prostitutes and all sorts of terrible things. Will she say a little more about the conversation she is going to have with the Defence Secretary and others about how we can ensure very high standards, in particular when UK funding is being used to support that important work, where there have been serious abuses?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. It is good that the message has gone out from this House that we recognise the good work that is done by many people working and volunteering for Oxfam. We can all go into our local Oxfam shop and give them our support at the weekend, and we should do that. We should recognise that our armed forces have already done a lot to raise the standards of peacekeeping troops. We do a huge amount of capacity building. We do a huge amount of work to address gender-based violence and exploitation and to enable people to recover in the aftermath of conflict and war. We have huge expertise and I am very interested in how we can use that expertise. I have spoken to other nations with similar programmes, such as Canada, to see what we can do to help to raise standards. I am open to ideas, but that is the nature of the conversation I will be having with the Defence Secretary.

Paul Scully: I congratulate the Secretary of State on taking a firm and robust stance from day one. Some charities may feel that there is a disincentive in the system to being open and transparent because of the need to bid for Government money and to appeal to the generous British public. Does she agree that the reputation of the big charities, as well as their outcomes, depends on being open and transparent, and not having obfuscation and cover-up?

Penny Mordaunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. If any charity thinks that it is a good idea to put their reputation before their beneficiaries, they need to look at what is happening to Oxfam now. It is also important to set a culture in which people are not afraid to report. Ironically, Oxfam is one of the better organisations for reporting numbers to the Charity Commission. I am also looking at where there are gaps, with organisations not reporting incidents and concerns. Reporting and numbers are not necessarily a bad thing, but it is about the practices surrounding that and what organisations do when they know that something has gone wrong.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, her actions on the horrific events and her assurance that the Government’s commitment to helping the world’s poorest is undimmed. This is not only a charity sector problem, a parliamentary problem, or a Hollywood problem; it is a pervasive, persistent problem across sectors, society and the world. Vulnerable people—mostly women and children—are  sexually objectified, exploited and abused by people with power, who are mostly men. Given the cross-cutting nature of this gendered violence, what discussions is the Secretary of State having across Government to take action to change the culture on sexual harassment and abuse across the board and to ensure that systems are in place to hold perpetrators to account?

Penny Mordaunt: As the hon. Lady will appreciate, in the immediate case I am concerned with a small slice of that, but I have been asking questions about how we hold Government Departments to account for our safeguarding work. I have also strengthened our whistleblowing practices with external oversight and, as I mentioned in my statement, we have written to other Government Departments that administer official development assistance spend.
This is a cultural change, and the Nolan principles of public life can help with the work that the Government do. Since 2013, we have had the UN’s code of conduct enshrined in our staff behaviour rules, and now that this incident has come to light, we are strengthening those rules by making explicit what we expect from all our staff. It does not matter whether prostitution is legal in a country or not; if someone is working for us, they cannot take part in those activities.

Nigel Evans: Will the Secretary of State stress that her Department makes no distinction about where a charity gets its money from—whether it is from Government or the charitable giving of British citizens—and that we will judge a charity by its deeds? When bad happens, as in the Oxfam case, the real victims are not Oxfam, which has now lost 7,000 subscribers, but the people on the ground, such as those in Haiti. They are the ones who really suffer.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The beneficiaries of aid are the victims in the Oxfam scandal, not anyone else. I absolutely recognise that individuals and members of the public will judge charities on how they respond, how they operate and their practices and responsibilities towards their beneficiaries. My Department has a particular responsibility to investigate those who are in receipt of UK aid, and the Charity Commission will look at the whole sector.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Following the International Development Committee’s hearing this morning, a number of areas for immediate action were raised. One was about charities’ ability to do a Disclosure and Barring Service check—formerly a Criminal Records Bureau check—for all their workers. Will the Secretary of State take immediate action to ensure that they can do that by including them as a regulated class of profession?
Secondly, we were told today that Interpol is ready to open up a register but lacks the finances to do so. Will the Secretary of State ensure that we put all resources into Interpol to make sure that that register is open, to stop paedophiles working in this sector?

Penny Mordaunt: The summit on 5 March will consider what we think needs to happen in the UK aid sector, so it might look at such checks or accreditation schemes and what form they should take. When I was in Stockholm  I also touched base with the National Crime Agency’s liaison officer to Interpol and discussed the issue briefly. Funding an Interpol system might not be the answer, but this is an important issue and we cannot deliver our work unless we can ensure that the vulnerable are protected, so we need to resource that.

Gareth Johnson: I am pleased that the Secretary of State mentioned Oxfam shops because, as she will know, they can operate only because an army of volunteers selflessly and kindly give up their time. Does she agree that the Government should do all they can to ensure that those people are in no way undermined by the wicked actions of a few people?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We can show our support for those individuals, who are good people and will be dismayed by what the leadership of their organisation has done. I think that they and the public have this issue in balance, because we know that this is not representative of the UK charity sector. We have a unique charity sector in this country—it is a jewel—and this is a stain on it. This is about a minority of individuals, but unless we really tackle these issues, the whole sector will be tarnished. I think that we can all show our support for those individuals who give up their time to do good work.

John Howell: By 2019, next year, we will have helped 7.8 million people in Nigeria have better nutrition. What contingency arrangements does the Secretary of State have in place to ensure that those projects will continue if Oxfam has to withdraw?

Penny Mordaunt: As I have said, I am reviewing all the partners we work with. If during the course of the investigation further things come to light that raise concerns about our ability to deliver aid in a particular location, I want to be sure that we have alternatives available, assessed and in place. We will have those answers after 26 February. I again assure the House that, whatever I do, no recipient of aid will suffer as a consequence.

Emma Lewell-Buck: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. How quickly will the perpetrators’ crimes be recorded with all the appropriate agencies here in the UK so that they cannot go on to commit these crimes again?

Penny Mordaunt: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is referring to the Oxfam case. That case is obviously an issue for Haiti, but I have also made it a requirement that Oxfam reports those individuals to their own national Governments, and that has taken place. When these incidents arise, or if organisations receive serious allegations, they should report them to their donors and to their equivalent of the Charity Commission, but it is very clear that they must also report them to their prosecuting authorities.

Philip Hollobone: I commend my right hon. Friend for the personal grip that she has taken on the issue. She is the named individual in Her Majesty’s Government who has taken responsibility for  tackling this. If it is not the Secretary-General, who is the named individual in the United Nations who should be gripping this issue in the way that she has done in this country?

Penny Mordaunt: The Secretary-General is the leader. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East spoke to him last week, and I spoke to his deputy in person. In the wake of this, they have clarified—if I may put it that way—their line on the issue. But we must also be concerned about the practical realities of them delivering that. We can talk to them and get assurances, press statements and letters, but it is the component parts of the UN that actually have to comply with those requirements. I am afraid that the only way we will do that is by dealing with them directly and, if we are not satisfied, withholding funding from those organisations.

Anneliese Dodds: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the fact that other Ministers, and the Charity Commission, were made aware of worries over safeguarding back in 2015, but no action was taken at that stage? Does it also concern her that the loophole relating to charity shops, as retail venues, remains? That does not apply to Oxfam, which changed its procedures once the activity was discovered to have occurred, but it may persist in the case of other charities. The Secretary of State does not seem to be concerned about that. Will she let us know why?
Finally, does the Secretary of State appreciate that, notwithstanding her assurances, many of my constituents —a number of whom have been employed by Oxfam as international development workers—are desperately concerned about the weaponising of these revelations by people wishing to argue against international aid, and that their concerns should not be dismissed out of hand?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I can assure the hon. Lady that, in respect of the Oxfam case, the Charity Commission was not informed. In fact—I think that this is important—the commission has described the circumstances of which I have informed the House today as “inappropriate sexual behaviour”, “harassment”, and the bullying of employees. That is not in any way an accurate reflection of the events that took place.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), the Civil Society Minister, is looking into all these issues, including the extension of checks to all retail outlets. I think that there are probably smarter ways of doing this, and if we find that if there is more to be done, we will need to do it.
I am sorry, but I cannot remember the hon. Lady’s last point. [Hon. Members: “You have done it.”] Okay—thanks.

John Bercow: I know that this involves the constituency of the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), but unfortunately—forgive me—if a question is too long, it is quite easy for a Minister to forget some of it. There is a lesson there. The hon. Lady is an extremely dexterous contributor, and we all learn from these situations.

Kevin Foster: Given the heroism of many aid workers in difficult circumstances, it is literally tragic to hear of a handful who decided to exploit such  a situation to fulfil their own sexual proclivities. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me by telling me what work her Department’s new safeguarding review unit will do to ensure that people are protected throughout the aid sector?

Penny Mordaunt: We need to do several things, but, in a nutshell, we need to ensure that every organisation is doing all in its power to prevent such actions from taking place. But if and when they do take place—we must recognise that people are working with a huge number of organisations, including local organisations, in what is, quite frankly, chaos—we must ensure that they are reported and dealt with appropriately, that those who have done things wrong are held to account, and that the whole process is transparent.

Liz McInnes: Does the Secretary of State envisage that an international register of aid workers will bring the capability to strike off abusers and ensure that they can no longer find work in the aid sector?

Penny Mordaunt: Yes. Since this story broke, we have received a number of suggestions from a number of organisations. We need to decide what we in the UK think is the best course of action, and that is what we will do on 5 March, with experts and representatives of the UK sector. We will then share that work with our fellow nations and do something together. That is the plan of action.

Bob Stewart: Are robust vetting systems in place not just for DFID officials working abroad, but for the charities that tend to work abroad in such dreadful situations?

Penny Mordaunt: We have good practices and procedures in place, and I have confidence in what my Department does. However, we work not only with the Oxfams and the Save the Childrens of this world, but with a raft of other organisations further down the supply chain. We must ensure that we can have confidence in the whole of that process. There are individuals whom we can accredit and register, but that will not be possible in the case of  other partners on the ground, so we must also ensure that we have the right oversight wherever in the world we are working.

Paul Sweeney: Extremely serious though they are, we should not allow these ongoing revelations to be used as a pretext to undermine the UK’s financial commitment to overseas development aid. A significant number of influential people who are now being vocal on the issue seem to be trying to exploit them for that, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurances in that regard. Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the ulterior motives of certain people of influence, who are conveniently jumping on this issue, despite being silent on other forms of abuse and sexual exploitation when they occur in other sectors and other parts of our society?

Penny Mordaunt: I do not think that is how people are responding to this situation; I think the bulk of people in this House and in the country want us to get a grip on this particular issue. As I said, we are committed to 0.7%—we introduced it; it has been in our manifesto; we are committed to it. We are also committed to spending it really well and ensuring that, in spending it, we are working with organisations that we can trust and that put their beneficiaries first.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, her determination and her strength of character. A whistleblower hotline has been set up; can the Secretary of State assure this House that those who use it will not be disadvantaged in employment as a result, and can she confirm whether there has been any usage of the hotline so far?

Penny Mordaunt: The hotline itself is not new. It has been in place for some years, and it is a discrete unit, so people are dealt with in complete confidence; neither myself, the permanent secretary nor any other part of the organisation is aware of calls that come in, and they are investigated separately and discreetly, but once investigations are concluded, we obviously know the result of them. So, yes, it has been used, and it has been very effective. As I said in my statement, through our interrogation of that system on historical cases, all those cases have been dealt with appropriately.

POST-18 EDUCATION

Damian Hinds: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the review of post-18 education and funding. While I am not announcing new policy today, I welcome the opportunity to confirm to the House details of a major review across post-18 education and funding, as announced by the Prime Minister yesterday.
Before I discuss the specifics of the review, I should highlight some of the strengths and successes of our existing post-18 system. We have a world-class higher education system. Sixteen British universities are in the world’s top 100 and four are in the top 10. We have record numbers of young people entering university, including from disadvantaged backgrounds. Our student finance system removes up-front financial barriers and provides protections for borrowers so that they only have to contribute when they can afford to do so. A university degree provides significant financial returns to the individual: graduates on average benefit from their university education by over £100,000 over their lifetime.
The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 sets the foundation for further improvements, with the Office for Students to be a strong voice for students and to ensure minimum standards. The director for fair access and participation will help to drive social mobility. The teaching outcomes and excellence framework measures are in the legislation as well, as is the facilitation of further diversity with new providers and shorter degrees delivered at a lower cost to students.
The Technical and Further Education Act 2017 extends the responsibilities of the Institute for Apprenticeships to include technical education, as well as introducing degree-level apprenticeships. New institutes of technology will be established, which will focus on higher-level technical skills and will be eligible for access to loans and grants for their students. T-levels are in development—a true, equal-standing alternative to A- levels.
We will build on those important reforms in this review. We will also look at parts of the system that are not working as well as they could be. Although we have seen further growth in three-year degrees for 18-year-olds, the post-18 system does not always offer a comprehensive range of high-quality alternative routes for the many young people who pursue a technical or vocational path at that stage. In universities, we have not seen the extent of increase in choice that we would have wanted. The great majority of courses are priced at the same level and three-year courses remain the norm. Meanwhile, although the funding system is a progressive one with built-in protections, those elements are not always well understood.
It is for those reasons that the Government are committed to conducting this major review to look further at how we can ensure that our post-18 education system is joined up and supported by a funding system that works for students and taxpayers. The review will look at four key strands: choice and competition across post-18 education and training; value for money for graduates and taxpayers; accessibility of the system to all; and delivering the skills that our country needs now and in the future. This means identifying ways to help  people to make the most effective choices between the options available at and after 18, so that they can make more informed decisions about their futures. It is also about ensuring that there is a more diverse range of options to choose from beyond the classic three-year or four-year undergraduate degrees.
We will look at how students and graduates contribute to the cost of their studies, to ensure that funding arrangements across post-18 education are transparent and do not prevent people from accessing higher education or training. We will examine how we can best ensure that people from all backgrounds have equal opportunities to progress and succeed in post-18 education, including considering how disadvantaged students receive maintenance support, both from the Government and from universities and colleges. We will look at how we can best support education outcomes that deliver our industrial strategy ambitions by contributing to a strong economy and delivering the skills our country needs.
We are clear that we must maintain and protect key elements of our current post-18 education system that work well already. We will maintain the principle that students should contribute to the cost of their studies, and we will not place a cap on the number of students who can benefit from post-18 education. We will not regress to a system like that in Scotland, where controls on student numbers continue to restrict the aspirations of young people.
The review will be informed by independent advice from an expert panel from across post-18 education, business and academia chaired by Philip Augar, a financial author and former non-executive director of the Department for Education. To inform its advice, the panel will carry out extensive consultation and engagement with the sector, with business and with, among others, people currently or recently participating in post-18 education. The panel will publish its report at an interim stage, before the Government conclude the overall review in early 2019.
The UK is truly a world-leading destination for study and research. Record numbers of young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are entering university. However, we recognise the concerns and we must look at how we can go further to provide choice, to open up access and to deliver value for money for students and taxpayers. We must ensure that the system as a whole is delivering the best possible outcomes for young people and the economy, joining up the vocational, technical and academic routes and supported by a fair and sustainable funding system. I commend this statement to the House.

Angela Rayner: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s admission yesterday that the system is not working. She rightly talked about the choices facing a working-class teenage girl today. I faced those choices as a working-class teenage girl myself, but every part of the education system that helped me has been attacked by this Government. I want to ask the Secretary of State first to clarify one simple point. He has claimed that there are now record numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds,  but the House of Commons Library has confirmed today that, when we include part-time students, there are now 10,000 fewer students from under-represented areas than there were before the Government raised tuition fees to £9,000 a year. And as usual, the rest of the Secretary of State’s announcement leaves us with more questions than answers.
Let us start with the most important question. Will the review be able to recommend extra funding for education overall? The terms of reference state that it cannot make recommendations on tax and that it must follow the Government’s fiscal policies. Does that mean that the review cannot recommend anything that would increase spending? If so, can the review consider restoring maintenance grants, reducing interest rates or increasing the teaching grant? Can the Secretary of State also confirm that the terms of reference make it clear that it is not an independent review at all but one directly run by his Ministers? Given that, will he ensure that the review’s recommendations are put to this House and implemented in primary legislation that we can properly discuss and amend?
The Prime Minister admitted that the current system
“leaves students from the lowest-income households bearing the highest levels of debt”.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that that will always be the case with a system entirely based on loans? Does he agree with his predecessor, who has admitted that this Government were wrong to scrap maintenance grants?
Speaking to The Sunday Times, the Secretary of State said that he wants differential fees, with higher prices for subjects with the greatest earning potential. Is that policy, or was the Government’s Education Secretary not speaking for the Government? Does he understand that charging higher fees for the very courses that lead to the highest-paid jobs makes no economic sense and only widens inequality? So much for social mobility.
The Conservative party manifesto promised a review of tertiary education across the board, yet further education colleges form no part of this review, despite the hundreds of thousands of people aged 16 to 18 studying in them. Have this Government abandoned yet another manifesto commitment?
Can the Secretary of State also tell us whether student nurses are covered by the review? If not, will he give this House a debate and a vote on the regulations he is trying to sneak through to abolish their bursaries? He said that he wants funding arrangements to be transparent. The Treasury Committee, chaired by another of his predecessors, found the funding arrangements to be anything but. The Committee highlighted the “fiscal illusion” at the heart of the system, with up to £7 billion of annual debt write-offs simply missing, allowing the Government to artificially reduce the deficit by saddling young people with debt. Perhaps he can tell us whether he will take up the Committee’s recommendations. Will he finally tell us the latest estimate of the resource accounting and budgeting charge and about how it will be written off?
The truth is that a year-long review is an unnecessary waste of time and energy when action is needed now. Let me offer the Secretary of State a simple conclusion to his review: a fully costed plan to scrap tuition fees, to bring back maintenance support and to reverse the rest  of the Government’s cuts to education. It is called “For the many, not the few” and that is exactly what our education system should be.

Damian Hinds: I thank the hon. Lady very much indeed for her response. She asked a number of questions and I will try to get through as many of them as I can. She is right to identify the issues of part-time participation in higher education. One of the things the review will look at is the ways in which it is possible to carry on earning in the labour force while studying. The decline in part-time study predates the 2012 reforms and indeed the change of Government in 2010, so we need to look at some of the underlying causes.
The hon. Lady asked what the review will cover. The review will cover the complete range, but the Government also believe in a framework of fiscal responsibility, and rightly so. It is only when we have a strong economy that we can have a strong education system and that we can carry on investing in our public services in the way that we are doing.
The hon. Lady asked whether it is an independent review. It is a Government review and the Government are ultimately responsible to this House and democratically. We make the decisions, but those decisions are informed and advised by an independent panel, the composition of which she knows. The legislative requirements that would follow from any changes would follow the normal processes. The same goes for the statutory instrument she asked about.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to set one important thing straight. When we talk about having different fees for different courses, it is about ensuring diversity and choice in the marketplace. That exists along many different axes, including shorter courses, more part-time courses and courses delivered in different ways. It is absolutely not the same as saying that there is some distinction of worth to be drawn between arts courses and science courses. With how the world economy is changing, it is also true that we are going to need more STEM graduates and more people with expertise in coding and so on, but that is a different point.
I will finish by observing that there is no such thing as “free” in higher education. Somebody must pay, and there are only two types of people who can fund higher education: those who have benefited from it and will typically earn much more over their lifetimes, and those who have not. There is a public subsidy that goes towards higher education that rightly reflects the societal benefit, but it is also right that the people who benefit contribute to the cost. The Labour alternative is to have the tab picked up entirely by other taxpayers, many of whom will not have benefited from the advantages. That is regressive policy that would mean less money going to universities and fewer people going to university. It would be a policy for the few, not the many.

Justine Greening: Like many Members of this House, I was the first person in my family to go to university, and wonderful universities, such as the University of Roehampton in my constituency, are now giving many young local people the same opportunity. I welcome that the panel will talk to young people, which is vital because they need certainty to be able to start making informed decisions about whether to go to university. I have two points. First, does my right hon. Friend agree  that social mobility must be at the heart of the panel’s thinking? Secondly, does he also agree that probably one of the worst things we could introduce would be the regressive tuition fee policy proposed by the Labour party, which would simply benefit the better-off at the expense of the worse-off in our society by introducing a cap on student numbers?

Damian Hinds: My right hon. Friend is of course completely right about the alternative policy proposed by the official Opposition, which would benefit the best-off. In contrast, as she says, we should be focusing on what we can do to promote social mobility and build on the strides that we have made in terms of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds going on to study full-time at age 18. She also mentioned the requirement that young people, or indeed older people, applying to university have certainty now. It is important for us to keep stressing that university is a good deal. If you are someone who can benefit from a university degree, we have a progressive system with plenty of protections in place, and if you can make the most of that, you should.

Carol Monaghan: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Prime Minister’s speech yesterday had plenty of platitudes and good intentions, but there has been absolutely nothing of substance. We have had an admission that the current system in England is not working for students. Admitting that it is wrong is one thing, but failing to correct the situation is simply incompetent. In Scotland, the Scottish National party has restored Scotland’s tradition of free higher education while maintaining the educational maintenance allowance for those at school or in further education and the bursary for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds in higher education—[Interruption.] Contrary to the comments from the Government Benches, that support package works. Scottish 18-year-olds from the most disadvantaged areas are now 67% more likely to apply to higher education than 12 years ago, and they graduate with the lowest debt in the UK. Is it not time that we stopped the nonsense and abolished the fees, and matched not just Scotland, but the rest of the developed world? Going to university should be based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay.
If the fees for some less expensive degree courses are lowered, as has been rumoured, has the Secretary of State considered how he will encourage young people to study the more expensive STEM subjects that are so desperately needed in the UK? We have already seen the impact of removing the nursing bursary, with applications to study nursing in England down by 23%. How will the Secretary of State ensure that that does not happen in STEM?
Both the Government and the Labour party are trying to rewrite the history of their responsibility for the tuition fees fiasco, and it is clear that Scotland is leading the policy debate in the UK. With the average debt on graduation in England now at £50,000, how will the Secretary of State ensure that a flow of talent from all backgrounds will continue? How will he ensure that the industrial strategy is supported? Is it not time that fees were abolished?

Damian Hinds: Additional support is already provided in England for some of those key subjects that have a higher cost attached to them, and the review will consider how to incentivise the take-up of such courses. As for the broader point, I said to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) that, if there were to be a policy along the lines that she suggested, that would mean fewer people being able to go to university, less money going to universities and disadvantaged students being impacted. She only has to look to her left towards the SNP to see exhibit A of how that works.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Understandably, there is intense interest in this subject, but I advise the House that there is a ten-minute rule motion to follow and that I have been informed that it is the intention of one Member to oppose it. Thereafter, there is the Second Reading of a Bill, to which 20 hon. Members want to contribute. I must therefore insist that we do not have speeches or pre-conceived rants. What is required is a pithy question, and I know that the Secretary of State will provide a pithy answer. If people do not want to deliver that, then they should not bother taking part today, because it is not fair on colleagues. We can always be led in such a matter by the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne).

Desmond Swayne: How few students actually pay 6%?

Damian Hinds: The interest rate, to which I think my right hon. Friend is referring, is currently 6.1%, but it varies with inflation. Critically, it means that those who earn more in their 20s and 30s will pay more—[Interruption.] It applies throughout the study period, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) should know. Thereafter, the rate varies depending on earnings. It does serve an important purpose, but it cannot be considered in isolation from all the other aspects of the system.

Barry Sheerman: I welcome the Secretary of State to his post, but will he take this matter seriously? Something is deeply wrong with higher education funding. Much has been achieved, but much needs to be reviewed. Will he concentrate on skills in our country? We are not producing the right skills or giving incentives to further education colleges and private trainers—all those who are struggling at the moment.

Damian Hinds: Much achieved, but things to look at again—I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman, because that is precisely what we are doing. As for skills, some of the skills that we are looking for are being delivered extremely well, but we need to do more. That is why we have had the big expansion in apprenticeships, the Institute for Apprenticeships, the raising of standards and, of course, the introduction of the T-levels, which he will welcome.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the review and the direction of travel, but my right hon. Friend will know that a fifth to a third of graduates are not getting graduate jobs and that the number of state  school graduates has decreased in the past year. It is not the case that our higher education system is not providing value for money for many disadvantaged people? That is why the review must focus on skills and on addressing social injustice.

Damian Hinds: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to focus on skills and to have social justice and equal opportunity at the heart of things. I should also mention that those who do not earn above the threshold do not repay their loan, which is an intrinsic part of the system.

Lucy Powell: According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, three quarters of graduates will not repay their loans, so it not the case that the system is not working for the taxpayer, let alone students? Therefore, would the Secretary of State have welcomed a more radical review that could have considered some of the deep-rooted problems of the current system?

Damian Hinds: I can understand why the hon. Lady asks that question, but part of the point of the system is that if someone does not earn up to a certain level, or if by the time 30 years have passed, someone has been out of the labour market, they are not expected to pay back the loan. That is deliberate to ensure that the system is progressive and fair.

Neil O'Brien: Thanks to the expansion that fees have enabled, the most disadvantaged students are now nearly twice as likely to go to university if they are in England as if they are in Scotland. I am in the first generation in my family to go to university and I want my constituents to have the same opportunity. Although I welcome the review, will the Secretary of State reassure me that we will not put that progress at risk?

Damian Hinds: I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that ensuring equal and fair access will be at the heart of what we do.

Nicholas Dakin: The Conservative party manifesto promised a review of tertiary education, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s review. However, when will he fulfil the promise to review the most underfunded part of our education system—16 to 18?

Damian Hinds: The internationally recognised definition of tertiary education is largely post-18. The hon. Gentleman is right about some of the challenges in post-16 education. A moment ago, I mentioned T-levels, for which considerably more funding will come forward. There is also the great expansion in apprenticeships.

David Evennett: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and strongly support his review. It is essential that we deliver the skills that our country needs, and give opportunities for all. Will he ensure that the concerns and views of business and industry are taken into account in the review?

Damian Hinds: It is vital that the views of industry and business are taken fully into account. I know that the independent panel will listen to them carefully.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The terms of reference that the Secretary of State published say that the review cannot make recommendations on tax policy and that it must make recommendations in keeping with the Government’s fiscal policies. Does that mean that there will be no new money for higher education regardless of the review’s recommendations?

Damian Hinds: As I said, we have a framework of fiscal responsibility, which we will stick to. The announcements on tax and spending are made at fiscal events, but the review has a wide remit to consider all the different aspects of the system and make recommendations.

Michael Tomlinson: The Secretary of State rightly stated the principle that those who benefit must contribute. Does he agree that the alternative is regressive and means a cap and a reduction in student numbers?

Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend is right and he has only to look north of the border to see how that works.

Layla Moran: The Secretary of State spoke about choices made at and after 18, but he will know that many students make those choices at 13 when they choose their GCSEs. The National Audit Office report on the higher education market identified high-quality careers advice and financial education as part of how we can fix the system. Will the review include that?

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady is right to talk about the choices that are made early. That is why drawing attention to the so-called facilitating subjects can be useful for keeping people’s options open for higher education. The point also highlights why we need to make clear early in school the routes to technical and vocational as well as higher education.

Giles Watling: Does the Secretary of State agree that high-quality apprenticeships are key to addressing the UK’s skills shortages?

Damian Hinds: I agree entirely. That is why we have such bold ambition for what we will do on apprenticeships—not just the numbers, but with the Institute for Apprenticeships, and moving from frameworks to standards to ensure that they deliver what business needs.

Margaret Greenwood: The creative industries generate more than £90 billion for the UK economy. Assessing the value of a university degree course on graduate salary or outcomes risks undermining that important sector. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that we support universities in producing world-class arts graduates?

Damian Hinds: The hon. Lady makes an important point and, of course, we do produce world-class arts graduates, and we have some of the finest institutions in the world doing that. On what she calls valuing degrees, I have said that at least three different considerations need to be made: the cost of putting on the course, the value in earnings to the individual, and also the value to our society as well as our economy.

Michelle Donelan: I am delighted that the review will address value for money for graduates. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system does not currently have the transparency for students to make informed choices, and that that needs to be addressed?

Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have moved forward with what is called the LEO—longitudinal education outcomes—dataset to help students make those analyses directly, and indeed to help those who provide information on courses.

Liam Byrne: The madness of the current system is that it costs students and taxpayers a fortune. Student debt is spiralling up to £55 billion, nearly half of which will be written off and picked up by general taxpayers. I urge the Secretary of State to look forensically at how we knit together further education and higher education so that we radically expand the number of earn-while-you-learn degree places, which are collapsing in great cities such as Birmingham, where they have halved in the past 12 months alone.

Damian Hinds: That was a question of two halves. In the first half, I think the right hon. Gentleman was describing what is called sharing the cost, which we do. We believe that it is right that the individual who benefits should take on part of the investment, and the taxpayer also picks up part of it. I agree entirely with the points in the second half of the question: we should have proper join-up between HE and FE. Many universities already do important technical education, and many FE colleges also conduct very good HE. We want more of a join-up.

Nigel Huddleston: Many of us, from both sides of the Chamber, come from modest backgrounds and were the first in our families to go to university. Any kind of cap on numbers could seriously jeopardise the system. Will the review therefore ensure that the unintended consequences of popular but ultimately disastrous policy options are highlighted?

Damian Hinds: The review will look at a range of issues, but highlighting the downsides of some policies that may appear outwardly and initially attractive is an important part of that.

Paul Blomfield: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that there will be no reduction in funding for widening participation and fair access programmes as part of the review?

Damian Hinds: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there has been some great progress in widening access in terms of social class and, for example, in terms of people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds going on to university. The access programmes that universities run are part of the reason for that. The director of fair access enables us to strengthen that further, learn from what works best and ensure that we spread best practice.

Eddie Hughes: We need to build 300,000 houses a year in this country. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that a high-quality apprenticeship in construction is an excellent alternative to incurring any debt through a university course?

Damian Hinds: Different people have different talents and orientations and enjoy different things, and it is important that we present a range. My hon. Friend is right to mention the particular requirement for construction skills, and the apprenticeship route is an important part of fulfilling that.

Steve McCabe: The review does not touch on the excessive salaries and pension pots that many vice-chancellors claim. Does the Secretary of State think that that is an insignificant factor in the current culture?

Damian Hinds: The overall remuneration of senior staff in institutions that have public support must also enjoy public confidence. The Office for Students will look at how we can ensure that that confidence is maintained.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the mention of apprenticeships and T-levels. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the review will cover the potential of institutes of technology to deliver them, particularly if one was built in South Devon College in Paignton?

Damian Hinds: I am not at this exact moment in a position to go into detail about Paignton, but I can confirm that institutes of technology are an important part of the piece.

Gareth Snell: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on the international definition of tertiary education being post-18, I point out that the Conservative party manifesto included 16 to 18 education as tertiary. Although it is the Secretary of State’s prerogative to choose his timings for inquiries, will he give an actual date for the FE review, because colleges in Stoke-on-Trent want to know?

Damian Hinds: We are constantly improving things. The level 4 and 5 review that is going on will feed into the review that we are discussing. As I have said to several Members, we want to ensure that the two sides are joined up.

Philip Hollobone: Yesterday, when I looked, there did not seem to be a readily accessible link on the website to the review team. If members of the public want to share the benefit of their views with Mr Augar, will the Secretary of State ensure that there is an accessible, emailable link?

Damian Hinds: I will indeed ensure that it is possible to do that. There will of course be a call for evidence as part of the process.

Deidre Brock: The Secretary of State has simply criticised the Scottish Government and not taken the opportunity to learn from them. Will he join me in welcoming the 2017 UCAS figures, which show a 13% increase in students from Scotland’s most deprived communities going to a Scottish university, and the overall 2% increase in applicants to universities this year from the 20% most deprived areas compared with last year?

Damian Hinds: The gap in opportunity between the disadvantaged and the advantaged in Scotland is well known to all, including the commentators who look at it, and no plucking from the air of a favourite statistic is going to change that. The fact is that the system we have in England has been effective in helping disadvantaged people to make the most of their talents if they want to go on to higher education.

Paul Farrelly: Student living costs are the most pressing issue at Keele University in my constituency and certainly elsewhere in the country, where it is much more expensive to rent and simply get by. Rather than waiting an age for the conclusions of this review, should the Government not simply address this issue now, as well as the sliding scale of access to maintenance loans and the reintroduction of maintenance grants?

Damian Hinds: Bringing in maintenance loans meant it was possible to get access to more cash, and we know the cash-flow question was an important consideration, especially in enabling disadvantaged students to stay at university. I confirmed in the statement that the review will look at all the different aspects of the system.

POINTS OF ORDER

Neil Gray: rose—

John Bercow: If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order, he may do so, but with sensitivity to the prevailing circumstances, with huge interest in the subsequent debate.

Neil Gray: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the pressures on time, so I will be brief. I seek your advice on the public actions of a Member of this House. During a debate on 5 February on social security, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), whom I have notified of this point of order, intervened on my speech to ask a question, which I was happy to answer. It later came to my attention that he had taken a video clip of his intervention and removed my reply, before stating publicly:
“I got no answer to my repeated question”.
We are left to speculate about the motive for the removal of my reply, but that is not the basis of my complaint.
By posting that clip and suggesting I had not answered his question, he mispresented the proceedings of this House, and he directly challenged my character and reputation. After being challenged, he did post a full transcript of the debate, but I understand that the original posting and statement remain, which I find deeply concerning. I have enjoyed frequent debates with him since he entered the House, and although we disagree politically, I get on well with him personally. However, I wonder whether this type of behaviour is acceptable according to you, Mr Speaker, or to the code of conduct. Can you therefore please advise whether it is in order for a Member to appear to publicly misrepresent the proceedings of this House, to deliberately or otherwise misrepresent another Member or to apparently attempt to mislead the public about proceedings in this House? Can you advise what powers you have to challenge this behaviour?

John Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have just made a point about the constraints on time and it would be helpful if people would be sensitive to it, because it is about others; it is not just about what they want to do now. I am grateful to him for advance notice that he wished to raise this point. I note his concern and I understand what he has just told the House, which is that he has brought the matter to the attention of the hon. Member for Stirling(Stephen Kerr). I appreciate that Members in all parts of the House are increasingly using social media to draw attention to proceedings in this House, and that, of itself, is perfectly understandable. Moreover, broadly it is to be welcomed. That said, I urge all Members to take care to ensure that usage of selected clips of debates does not create a misleading impression of what has taken place. I might add that it is one thing for a Member to post a clip of what he or she has said, but to add evaluative commentary or to imply the absence of a reply to a point that that Member has made could fall into the category of knowingly misleading.
As for the code of conduct, what I would say to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) is that in the circumstance that he thinks there has been a  breach of it, the appropriate action is to write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I strongly suggest that he do so if he is so motivated and convinced, rather than pursuing the matter further on the Floor of the House. That ruling is relevant not just to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for airing the issue, but to other Members. I must say to the House that it would not be desirable if we were regularly to have points of order of this kind. Already we have colleagues complaining about Members visiting their constituencies without prior notification and we do not want a whole new category of constant points of order on matters of this kind, so it is up to Members to help each other.

Matthew Offord: rose—

John Bercow: If Dr Offord feels that his views need to be registered to the nation, so be it.

Matthew Offord: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In December 2016, the British Government adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of “anti-Semitism”. This definition explains that claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist and illegitimate endeavour is anti-Semitic. Therefore, by the Government’s own measure, the words “Israeli apartheid week” are manifestly anti-Semitic and violate this country’s own definition of anti-Semitism. Given that the Secretary of State and his team are here and that yesterday marked the beginning of Israeli Apartheid Week, may I ask you, Sir, how we can have a statement from the Government condemning these actions and, if appropriate, bringing forward the necessary legislation to prevent them?

John Bercow: I do not know whether a Minister is minded to make a statement on the matter, and I am not entirely sure which Minister the hon. Gentleman had in mind. The Secretary of State for Education is in his place, but it is not obvious to me that the matter is for the Secretary of State. Other Ministers are also present on the Treasury Bench and they will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. I suspect that what he has had to say will be communicated more widely to members of the Government. I think that for today we will leave it there, but I thank him for saying what he wanted to say.

POSTAL VOTING

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Damien Moore: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about postal voting at elections.
It is great privilege to present this Bill in the mother of all Parliaments, in one of the world’s great democracies. The representation of the people or postal handling Bill escalates two of Sir Eric Pickles’ recommendations made in his review of electoral fraud, which he undertook as part of his remit as the Government’s anti-corruption champion. There is no threat more insidious to a democratic society than electoral fraud, and it is almost beyond belief that so many allegations of fraudulent behaviour have been made during recent council, mayoral and general elections. It is clear that unscrupulous and devious people are intent on subverting the confidence of the electorate and damaging the sanctity of our ancient democracy. The events that occurred during the 2014 Tower Hamlets mayoral election are mercifully rare, but they show us that our democracy cannot be taken for granted. We need to accept that our trust-based electoral system is susceptible to fraudulent practices. International intergovernmental organisations such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights have raised their concerns over what they perceive to be vulnerabilities within the United Kingdom’s electoral systems, and it is essential that we act now.
Of course, fighting corruption and electoral fraud has benefits beyond protecting democracy and the suffrage of our citizens. Crime begets crime, and malfeasance and corruption, once they put down roots in an organisation or institution, are very hard to eradicate. An individual who has undermined the democratic process and attained elected office through casuistic means is unlikely to maintain ethical standards in office; they are likely to lapse into recidivistic tendencies, to the detriment of those they represent.
The law currently allows a voter to hand in their own and other peoples completed and sealed postal ballots to a polling station on polling day or to a returning officer on any day before polling day that is deemed to be too close to polling day to ensure that the postal service will be able to execute delivery of the postal ballot in time. The Electoral Commission has introduced a code of conduct that, in essence, states that no political activist should handle another person’s postal ballot papers, but the code is not enshrined in law.
At present, political activists and campaigners are still legally permitted to handle and deliver an unlimited number of postal ballots to polling stations. Although the simple act of handing in another person’s completed and sealed postal ballot could be completely innocuous, I am certain that most Members will be at least be familiar with the concept of postal ballot harvesting. That practice involves political activists gathering up postal ballots, sometimes in their hundreds, and delivering them to polling stations on behalf of the local electorate. As these completed ballots are often handed in to polling stations on polling day, there is rarely a chance to ensure that they have not been tampered with or fraudulently completed by another party.
As Sir Eric Pickles noted in his report on electoral fraud, “Securing the ballot”, the lack of a statutory ban on the handling of postal ballots by political activists leaves scope for the integrity of the voting system to be undermined. Frankly, it is impossible to disagree. In recent years, and perhaps cultivated by increasingly partisan politics, there has been an escalation in instances of intimidation and threats against politicians, after greater schisms than ever between political factions, expressed in the basest way. Of course, there have also been increasing concerns about corruption within our electoral system.
The Bill seeks to allay the possibility of postal ballot fraud, but I also hope that it will go some way towards putting the dignity back into democracy. I hope that Members from all parties recognise that the Bill would introduce pragmatic, sensible legislation into the electoral legal canon. Parliamentarians should be at the forefront of electoral reform, helping to ensure that opportunities for malpractice and criminal behaviour are eradicated.
The Bill would implement a ban on the handling of complete, incomplete or blank postal ballot papers by persons seeking to benefit a candidate or a political party, including candidates, agents and their staff, along with political party officers, members, activists and representatives of pressure groups associated with political parties. Furthermore, the Bill would apply to people or organisations campaigning for or against a political candidate at an election, or, indeed, to people or organisations campaigning for or against a particular outcome at a referendum.
The Bill would enforce a reasonable limit on the number of postal ballots that any individual can hand in on behalf of other voters at a polling station or to a returning officer on polling day. Any individual registered to vote at an election would be able to hand in no more than the prescribed number of postal ballots that were not their own. We envisage that regulations made under the enabling power in the Bill would set the maximum at two.
Individuals could exercise their own right to vote or could hand in their own sealed postal ballot in addition to the others they are returning. That is an important element of the Bill, for it is not always possible to identify the aforementioned subterfuge whereby a party affiliate or campaigner is handling postal ballots and delivering them to polling stations or returning officers. It is rare that an individual could be identified as being part of a political group or as an activist, so it is necessary to apply a limit to the number of postal ballots delivered to polling stations or returning officers for absolutely everybody, without exception.
What of the penalties for those who seek to undermine the will of the electorate through fraudulent behaviour? It is imperative that we enforce stringent sanctions that provide a deterrent to anyone considering committing an electoral offence by deviating from the new measures on postal ballot handling. The Bill would introduce a new offence. Individuals who are banned from handling postal ballot papers that belong to someone else—specifically party affiliates or campaigners—and who do not meet the criteria for an exemption would face the following penalties: a prison sentence of up to two years; a fine; or a prison sentence and a fine following conviction or indictment. Alternatively, in the instance of a summary conviction, they would face up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine on summary conviction.
There are of course exceptions and extenuating circumstances. The Bill would include an exemption for those individuals who are political or campaign affiliates but who are acting on behalf of a family member or another voter for whom they are a carer. That is critical. Although the law must seek to impede fraud and malpractice in elections and referendums, it is equally important that no one should feel that they are unable to exercise their democratic right to vote.
We must ensure that regulations provide polling station staff with the means to examine the intentions and provenance of anyone purporting to hand in someone else’s postal ballot papers. The best way to do that is to enable polling station staff to provide the individual in question with a prescribed form that, through a series of basic questions, would allow those staff to determine whether that voter is permitted to hand in or handle another person’s postal ballot papers. Hopefully, the form would provide a certain structure to the process and instances of calumny during innocuous visits to the polling station would be rare. Guidance would be established to ensure that polling station staff were well equipped to deal with the new requirements placed on them by the Bill.
It is important to recognise that the measures in the Bill have been carefully considered. It is essential that polling station staff do not look askance at voters who enter polling stations and voting booths on polling day, but the Bill would enable greater scrutiny of possible electoral misdeeds. Abstention from voting has often been too high in the United Kingdom, but voter turnout at last year’s general election was the highest in 25 years. I am certain that we parliamentarians can further encourage political engagement from a sometimes “vote shy” public, while examining the ways and means to make elections and referendums as fair and free as possible. Indeed, I hope that the Bill will be part of a wider movement of electoral transparency, decorum in campaigning and public engagement with our democracy. Perhaps most crucial of all is the right for all people to engage in political campaigning without intimidation and the threat of violence.
The Bill would introduce basic changes that would go some way towards addressing perceptions of wrongdoing, with a view to securing a fairer electoral system. I hope that my parliamentary colleagues will consider it with the candour and thoughtfulness that I have come to expect from them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Gareth Snell: I rise to speak against the Bill and its contents. First, though, before I am misrepresented, let me be absolutely clear that electoral fraud is a serious crime and should be taken seriously. It is important that police forces throughout the country have the resources necessary to bring about prosecutions when such fraud takes place. Along with my Opposition colleagues, I of course condemn any actions that seek to undermine the integrity of our democratic process.
As well intentioned as the Bill may be, regulation aimed at party campaigners through criminal law is not the answer. Moreover, the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) overestimate the scale of the problem. The proposals in his Bill are an overreaction. Unfortunately, some  Conservative Members have talked down our democracy with scaremongering stories of voter fraud. Stories of widespread voter abuse have been parroted by Tory MPs, not least by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham), whom I made aware that I would refer to him. On more than one occasion, he has attested to having evidence of multiple voting by students, but he has been unable to produce the evidence when it was requested of him.
Such stories have been used by the Conservative party to justify the piloting of restrictive identification requirements at the local government elections in May. The requirements will disproportionately affect communities with large numbers of old and disabled people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Other regulations are being introduced for future metro mayor elections.
Voters across Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Woking and Watford will be required to produce ID when they next go to cast their ballot. They will need a piece of photo ID, a piece of non-photo ID and their polling card—all that before being issued with a ballot paper. Those without the necessary ID will not be able to participate in the local elections. They will be denied their democratic entitlement.
One would think we were in the midst of an epidemic of widespread voter fraud, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Conservative party says that electoral fraud through voter impersonation doubled nationally between 2014 and 2016. Although the number of alleged cases of voter impersonation rose from a meagre 21 to a whopping 44, the total number of votes cast in those years rose from 29 million to 64 million in 2016.
The question is whether we need new laws to regulate how we and political parties campaign. I firmly believe that the answer is no. First, such matters are best handled by the Electoral Commission’s code of conduct for campaigners. The Electoral Commission is clear that campaigners should not be involved in the process of assisting other people to complete postal or proxy vote applications or handling postal ballot packs. The Labour party makes that very clear to our activists, and we have incorporated it into our existing code of conduct and disciplinary processes.
In a small number of instances, accessibility is improved by individual campaigners assisting people by returning their voting packs directly to the returning officer or to a polling station. That is particularly true for disabled and elderly voters, who are not provided with public assistance to complete absent votes and face low levels  of access to polling stations. Indeed, according to Scope, at the 2010 general election, two thirds of polling stations had
“one or more significant access barriers”
to disabled voters. Leonard Cheshire Disability found that a quarter of the people with disabilities it surveyed found it difficult to vote in person at polling stations at the 2015 general election. My fear is that regulation would criminalise the helpful and prohibit assistance that is otherwise unavailable to those voters who need it.
Regulation of the sort suggested in the Bill would be difficult to enforce and breaches would be almost impossible to detect. It would put off honest campaigners without deterring the dishonest ones. That is not just my view, but a view shared by Alan Mabbutt, a current Conservative party board member, who said that regulations targeted at campaigners
“would do little to help. If a person is prepared to ignore the law on fraud and undue influence they would ignore laws here.”
Timothy Straker QC, a barrister who acts for the Electoral Commission, questioned the need for a criminal offence. He said that regulation would be
“unenforceable and would bring the law and the process into disrepute”.
The Electoral Commission has rightly raised the question of how we define “campaigner”. For instance, if I assist my neighbour in taking their postal vote to a polling station, am I suddenly subjected to the law that the hon. Member for Southport wishes to introduce? There is no accepted definition of “campaigner”. I understand why he wishes to codify that in his Bill, but there will always be exceptions and unanswered questions.
The Bill has many regulatory holes and too many unresolved questions. Although I do not intend to force a Division, I want my opposition and that of many of my colleagues to be formally recorded. The hon. Gentleman talked about new forms for polling staff. Like me, he has been a local authority councillor and will know that the people who man polling stations on polling day are of the highest quality and do not need a form to determine whether they understand when voter fraud is taking place. We are best leaving it to the Electoral Commission and the judgment of those staff who make those decisions on the day.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Damien Moore, Mr Simon Clarke, Vicky Ford, Eddie Hughes, Andrew Bowie, Giles Watling, Julia Lopez and Lee Rowley present the Bill.
Damien Moore accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 166).

SANCTIONS AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING BILL [LORDS]

Second Reading

Boris Johnson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should begin by paying tribute to my noble Friend Lord Ahmad for piloting the Bill through the other place with such skill and finesse. The aim of the Bill is to grant Her Majesty’s Government full power over British sanctions policy after we leave the EU and, in a memorable phrase, to take back control.
This Government’s driving purpose is to strengthen Britain’s global role and widen the horizons of our foreign policy in order to advance the interests and promote the values of the British people, but if our diplomacy is to be effective, it cannot be solely declaratory: we must have the means to impose a price on those who would threaten to do us harm. In the last resort, that will sometimes mean the use of force—this Government will not resile from acting when necessary—but more often, we back our diplomacy through sanctions. Today, the UK enforces 36 sanctions regimes, targeted on countries such as North Korea, Syria and Russia and terrorist organisations including al-Qaeda and Daesh. In total, about 2,000 individuals and entities are listed for sanctions, varying from asset freezes and travel bans to trade restrictions and arms embargos. At this moment, assets worth £12.5 billion are frozen in the UK.
Our powers to impose those sanctions and measures against money laundering derive almost entirely from the European Communities Act 1972. I am delighted to say that Parliament will soon repeal that Act by means of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is now before the other place. When that Act comes into force, it will freeze Britain’s adherence to the existing sanctions regimes, but if we do nothing, we will lose the ability to impose new sanctions or remove current ones. That is why the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill is necessary. It will give any British Government the power to impose, amend or lift an independent battery of UK sanctions, and update measures against money laundering and terrorist financing, thereby restoring our sovereignty over a vital tool of foreign policy.
The House will readily understand the freedom of action that all British Governments today and in the future will regain. If, for example, there is an international crisis and we judge that sanctions are the best response, we will no longer be compelled to wait for consensus among 28 members of the EU. The Bill will give us the freedom to decide on national sanctions as we see fit, bearing in mind that Britain possesses the fifth biggest economy in the world and the largest financial centre in Europe.
Hon. Members will know that sanctions are most effective when jointly enforced by many nations. Nothing in the Bill will stop us concerting our sanctions with any measures imposed by the EU, but if there is no agreement in the EU, as there often is not, Britain can act independently or alongside other allies. If the EU shares our position, we can act together. The outcome will be that Britain enjoys both freedom of manoeuvre and the option of  working alongside our European friends. In the main, I hope that the latter will continue and that we can act in tandem, because the truth is that Britain and our European neighbours will always confront the same threats and defend the same values.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, Britain’s unconditional and immoveable commitment to the security and defence of Europe will not change one iota when we leave the EU, and this country has always played a leading role in devising EU sanctions—it is thanks to our national expertise in this field that the UK proposed more than half of all the individuals and entities currently listed for EU sanctions. The EU will have every reason to concert its sanctions policy with us in future, just as we will be happy in principle to work hand in glove with the EU. The Bill will place this British Government and our successors in the strongest possible position. We will be equipped with the power to impose sanctions independently, but without prejudice to our ability to co-ordinate with our European allies.
The Bill is also necessary for the UK to continue to play its full part in the struggle against money laundering and terrorist financing. Without the Bill, we should soon find ourselves in breach of international standards. I am proud to say that Britain was the first G20 country to introduce a public register of beneficial owners of companies, thanks to the Conservative-led Government. We are now going further by creating a public register of the beneficial owners of any non-UK entities that possess or buy property in this country, or that participate in UK Government procurement. No other state is compiling such a register, which will be the first of its kind in the world.

Jonathan Djanogly: May I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm this: when he says property, is that all property or just real property?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—I was referring to real estate. As I am sure he knows, the proposal has the same intention as the tax on enveloped dwellings that was introduced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has proved, to the best of my knowledge, to be extremely lucrative for the Exchequer.

Margaret Hodge: Given the Secretary of State’s commitment to the EU’s action on money laundering, is he saying that the Government will implement the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive, which requires that we all have public registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2019?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Lady will be aware, the UK is already out in front of the rest of the world in insisting on public registry of beneficial ownership, irrespective of the implementation of the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive. As I will explain to the House, we already ask the overseas territories to do far more than other jurisdictions that offer financial services advantages.

Margaret Hodge: I would be most grateful if the Secretary of State would give way again.

Boris Johnson: Oh, go on.

Margaret Hodge: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. The reason I asked the question is that the EU’s anti-money laundering directive would have an impact on the UK and Gibraltar. I am interested in whether the Foreign Secretary will implement the directive, given that implementation is required by 2019.

Boris Johnson: I do not know the exact stage of the directive at the moment. To the best of my knowledge, we are in the process of implementing it. It should creep in under the wire and will, I hope, have the beneficial effect that the right hon. Lady desires.

Sammy Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Boris Johnson: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
As sanctions have serious consequences for the individuals and entities that are singled out, they should be employed only in accordance with the rule of law, so it may be helpful to the House if I describe the scrupulous procedure laid out in the Bill.
Whenever the Government intend to impose a new sanctions regime, a statutory instrument will be laid before Parliament. When selecting targets, we will apply the legal threshold of “reasonable grounds to suspect”, which is the standard that we currently use for UN and EU sanctions. Both the British Supreme Court and the EU’s general court—the former court of first instance—have endorsed the use of that threshold in recent cases, and it is vital that the UK and our international partners continue to employ the equivalent threshold so that our sanctions policies and theirs can be co-ordinated.
The Bill contains safeguards allowing those listed for sanctions to challenge their designation and receive swift redress if it is warranted. Sanctions are not ends in themselves; they must not be maintained simply out of inertia or force of habit once the necessity for them dies away. The Bill will entitle any designated person to request an administrative reassessment by the Secretary of State, who will have a duty to consider any such request as soon as reasonably practicable. The Secretary of State can amend or revoke the designation in response to new information or a change in the situation. As a last resort, the designated person can apply to challenge the Government’s decision in the courts under the principles of judicial review, and the Bill provides for classified evidence to be shared with the court as appropriate.
Britain is obliged by international law to enforce any sanctions agreed by the UN Security Council. If a court in this country believes that such a designation is unlawful, the Secretary of State can use his or her best endeavours to remove a name from a UN sanctions list, bolstered by the fact that Britain has permanent membership of the Security Council. If a Secretary of State declines to seek a delisting at the UN, the relevant individual could challenge that decision before the courts. In addition, the Bill obliges the Government to conduct an annual review of every sanctions regime and place a report before Parliament. The Government are also required to review each individual designation under all regimes every three years.
The Bill allows the Government to grant licences to allow certain activities that would otherwise be prohibited—for instance, to permit any individuals subject  to asset freezes to pay for essential needs such as food or medicine. The Bill will also give the Government the power and flexibility to issue general licences that could, for example, allow aid agencies to provide humanitarian supplies in a country subjected to sanctions.

Nigel Mills: Where assets have been frozen—for example, in the case of Libya and its support for the IRA—does the Secretary of State see any scope for a licence to allow that money to be used to help the victims of such outrageous crimes?

Boris Johnson: I completely concur with the objectives espoused by my hon. Friend. Many people would like to see some compensation flowing from a more prosperous Libya to the victims of IRA terrorism and, indeed, to other victims of terrorism. Given what we have done so far with Libya, it would be very difficult to unfreeze the assets; they are not our assets and it would be difficult for us to procure them. On the other hand, there is scope—working with the Libyan Government as Libya gets back on its feet, which is what we are currently working for —to set up a fund for the victims not just of IRA terrorism in this country, but of terror in Libya as well. That is the way forward: the UK and Libya working together to address that historic injustice. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that subject, on which there are strong feelings both in this House and in the other place.
We must never lose the ability to keep pace with the criminals and terrorists who strain every nerve and sinew to confound and evade our efforts. The Bill provides the Government with the power to make, amend or repeal secondary legislation to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Behind all this lies our primary goal: to restore the independent power of a global Britain to defend our interests and to exert our rightful influence on the world stage, acting in concert with our European friends whenever possible, sure in the knowledge that we are a force for good. I commend this Bill to the House.

Helen Goodman: This is one of many Bills that we need because of our impending departure from the European Union. We agree that sanctions are a crucial lever in our foreign policy armoury. Indeed, their use and usefulness is demonstrated by the fact that we have 36 sanctions regimes on countries ranging from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, and covering terrorist organisations such as Daesh and al-Qaeda. We accept that the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill means that the Government must replace it with domestic powers. However, we have a number of questions, criticisms and challenges for the Government about the way in which they are doing that in the Bill.
Money laundering through the City of London is now estimated at £100 billion a year, and the two clauses in the Bill devoted to the matter are wholly inadequate to tackle this massive problem, which is illegal in itself and also hides and enables other crimes, perverts justice, distorts the economy and is seriously undermining our reputation. International standards to prevent it are set out by the Financial Action Task Force and translated—currently via the EU—to national level. We agree that legislation is needed so that we can continue to honour our international obligations.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that if we tackled tax evasion and avoidance, we would not see such modest levels of overseas development? Countries around the world—in Africa and Asia—would be able to finance their own basic services. Those places do have the money, but companies are stealing it via evasion and avoidance.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Quite a lot of the money that is hidden is hidden by corrupt regimes, particularly in Africa.
A major criticism of the Bill as first drafted was of its Henry VIII clauses. Throughout, the Bill was giving Ministers the power to make regulations—in other words, to make law that cannot be amended by Parliament and is sometimes made without even any debate. In our consideration of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, Members across the House complained that the level of the Henry VIII powers was so excessive that the Government agreed to a sifting Committee in order to limit the concentration of the power of the Executive. Arguably, with no sunset clause, this Bill is even worse in this respect. Speaking in the other place, the well-named and noble Lord Judge described it as a “bonanza of regulations” and the “Regulation Bulk Buy” Bill. Their lordships defeated the Government twice in votes on this. I hope that the Government will not now seek to undo those changes to the Bill. If so, we will oppose them.
It is surely obvious to everyone that sanctions regimes are effective only when they are co-ordinated internationally, as the Foreign Secretary acknowledged, and we need maximum support across the world and agreed implementation mechanisms to enforce them. However, he did not really answer some of the questions as to how that is going to be done post Brexit. Half our sanctions emanate from the EU. I am not saying that this is necessarily a matter for legislation, but surely the Government should have a plan for how we are going to be involved in EU decision making on sanctions regimes and the implementation of those regimes. Ukraine is a good example of where that is needed. What specific plans has the Foreign Secretary developed for a framework to provide for continued co-operation with the EU on foreign policy issues after we leave? What discussions have been held on that particular issue in the Brexit talks? What are the Government seeking to achieve in their negotiations with the EU on that matter? We were warned last week by the three spy chiefs that, without co-operation with our EU partners in intelligence sharing, policing and judicial matters, it would be difficult to enforce compliance on sanctions, which are vital for dealing with terrorism and proliferation.
Labour’s view is that the core principles of sanctions policy should be that sanctions are targeted to hit regimes rather than ordinary people; minimise the humanitarian impact on innocent civilians; and have clear objectives, including well-defined and realistic demands against which compliance can be judged, with a clear exit strategy. There should be effective arrangements for implementation and enforcement, especially in neighbouring countries, and sanctions should avoid unnecessary adverse impacts on UK economic and commercial interests. We will seek to amend the Bill to ensure that those principles are adhered to throughout.
One very big and obvious hole in the Bill is its failure to incorporate Magnitsky clauses, which the House has repeatedly supported and voted for. Sergei Magnitsky  was a Russian lawyer who uncovered large-scale tax fraud in Russia. For his pains, he was imprisoned and tortured throughout a whole year, finally dying having been brutally beaten up while chained to a bed. We will be tabling a Magnitsky clause that would enable sanctions to be made in order to prevent or respond to gross human rights violations. Such provisions have been adopted in the United States and Canada, and they were also reflected in the Criminal Finances Act 2017. I cannot understand how or why the Foreign Secretary has missed this opportunity; perhaps he has been too busy designing bridges. Such a step is not just about Russia. We are now in the strange position that the United States has tougher sanctions than we do on Myanmar.

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to accuse the hon. Lady of failure to read the Bill, but clause 1(2) makes it absolutely clear that sanctions can be imposed to promote human rights. A fortiori, that obviously involves a Magnitsky clause to prevent the gross abuse of human rights. The measure that she seeks is in the Bill.

Helen Goodman: I am afraid that I do not think the Bill makes that clear. First, it does not include the phrase, “gross human rights abuses”, which the Foreign Secretary just used, and furthermore, it does not refer to public officials. This is a matter that we can debate upstairs in Committee, and I will be happy to do so with the Minister.
Another key area that the Government have failed to address properly is the position of refugees and victims of human trafficking. Last month, the House unanimously resolved:
“That…conflict resolution…and the protection of human rights should be at the heart of UK foreign policy and that effective action should be taken to alleviate the refugee crisis”.
There are now 66 million refugees—more than there have ever been and more than the population of the United Kingdom. The flow of desperate people across the Mediterranean and through Turkey is continuing. Yet the Bill gives no impression that Ministers have given any thought whatsoever to the plight of these people, who are seeking refuge from desperate and protracted conflicts around the world.

Alan Duncan: May I draw the hon. Lady’s attention again to clause 1(2)? Paragraph (e) mentions exactly what she is talking about—promoting
“the resolution of armed conflicts or the protection of civilians in conflict zones”.
Paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) refer exactly to the human rights abuses that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned in response to her earlier comments.

Helen Goodman: That is absolutely true, but if the Minister reads a little further into the Bill and looks at clauses 6 and 7 on aircraft and shipping, he will see that there are some problems at that point. Again, we can come back to this in Committee.
The Bill states that prohibitions can be applied to UK nationals and companies based in the United Kingdom, but not against companies based or incorporated in the British overseas territories. Recent reports from UN monitors implicate territories such as the British Virgin Islands in the setting up of front companies that helped  North Korea to evade the sanctions imposed on it. The problem of sanctions avoidance is very serious. Last week, I was told in answer to a written parliamentary question that the total cost of financial sanctions reported as having been breached last year was £170 million. This afternoon, I received a letter from the Treasury, which has looked at the numbers again and says that the number is £1.4 billion. We need to look at this in more detail in Committee.
I now turn to the anti-money laundering provisions—what one might call the McMafia section of the Bill. To set this in context, the Home Affairs Committee report of June 2016 found:
“Money laundering is undoubtedly a problem in the UK…It is disgraceful that at least a hundred billion pounds is being laundered through the UK every year. If the UK is to remain the centre of global finance, this must be addressed.”
It pointed out that
“money laundering takes many…forms…from complex financial vehicles and tax havens around the world through to property investments in London…and high value jewellery. It is astonishing that just 335 out of some 1.2 million property transactions…were deemed to be suspicious. This suggests to us that supervision of the property market is totally inadequate”.
At the moment, it is far too easy—

Layla Moran: Is the hon. Lady aware of the geographical targeting orders piloted by the USA that we were told about in the Public Accounts Committee during our trip to Washington last week? Does she know that 30% of the properties investigated were found, in the end, to be owned by nefarious people?

Helen Goodman: That is very shocking. I did not know about it. I hope that the hon. Lady will dilate on the matter further during the debate.
It is obviously possible for people to buy a property, take in rent in perpetuity and have a clean income. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the surveyor Henry Pryor said:
“we do have the equivalent of a welcome mat out for anybody to come if you want to launder your money.”
Money laundering enables the corrupt to live in comfort and security. It is also used to finance other serious and organised crime such as drug dealing, human trafficking, terrorism and even the illegal arms trade and WMD sanctions busting. The click of a computer mouse in London or the overseas territories can mean untold misery across the globe. The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill says:
“As a global financial centre, the UK is particularly exposed to the threat of being exploited as a destination or transit point for illicit funds”.
Ministers know that this is a problem. Between 2013 and 2016, David Cameron’s Government issued increasingly strong statements and promises, culminating in the May 2016 global summit. There were three specific proposals: a transparent register of beneficial owners of all companies registered in the UK, similar registers in the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and a public register of foreign owners of UK property. However, the implementation has been halting, under-resourced, partial and confused. Currently we have at least 25 different  regulatory bodies. It is true that we can now see on the Companies House register who the person is with significant control, but last year 400,000 companies failed to submit the information. Companies House has no due diligence procedure and employs only 20 people to supervise 4 million entries.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, when one of my constituents reported a fraudulent entry in the Companies House register, the response from Companies House was that it does not do the enforcement, but is just the registry? This fraud is a mockery of the whole registry system.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend has brought precisely the point to the House in highlighting that unfortunate episode.
Registers have been introduced in some of the British overseas territories, but they can be accessed by the authorities in London only when the authorities have a reason to be suspicious. The inadequacy of that approach was demonstrated by the publication of the Panama papers and the Paradise papers. According to the Guardian investigators, the law firm Mossack Fonseca, operating out of Panama, acted for 113,000 companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, which hosts 950,000 offshore companies. That is a country with a population of 30,000. This is public interest journalism at its best—fearless, determined and forensic. Had it not been for the excellent investigatory journalism, we would not have known that Britain’s high street banks processed $740 million from a vast money-laundering operation run by Russian criminals through anonymously owned firms, nor that Mukhtar Ablyazov, who fled Kazakhstan in 2009 after $10 billion went missing from the bank he chaired, had a Cayman Islands trust set up by law firm Appleby.
Significantly, HMRC has been able to use the information revealed in Panama and Paradise to open civil and criminal investigations into 66 people and pursue arrests for a £125 million fraud, tackle insider trading and place dozens of high net worth individuals under review. Imagine how much more effective it could be if transparency were the rule and not the exception.

Paul Sweeney: My hon. Friend makes a good series of points about the nature of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Given that the Bill considers the whole nature of our governance structures after Brexit, does she agree that we should look in a broader sense at the curious structure of British overseas territories and Crown dependencies? We should perhaps follow the example of France, which has incorporated its overseas territories into its metropolitan country and given them a democratic place in its legislature. We could consider the same thing.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is right that the situation is complex—we have one legal regime for the overseas territories and another for the Crown dependencies—but I think that that would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
The all-party parliamentary group on responsible tax, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), has been pursuing this agenda energetically for several years now, and across the House, Members want effective action.
Another scandal is the use of London property by oligarchs, corrupt officials and gangsters from across the globe. I am talking about people like Karime Macías, the Mexican wife of the former Veracruz Governor Duarte. He has been imprisoned and charged with corruption, money laundering and involvement in organised crime. His years in office saw a spike in disappearances and murders, while she claims to be a fugitive in London.
When I was young, if you drove through Chelsea at night, it was full of light because people actually lived there. Now, swathes of London are pitch black, as properties are bought simply as money safes. Meanwhile, in the outer boroughs, which the Foreign Secretary never visits—

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Lady may recollect, I was never out of the outer boroughs when I was Mayor of London, and the former Mayor of London visited Havana more often than he visited Havering.

Helen Goodman: I wish the Foreign Secretary was as energetic in his pursuit of the corrupt in this Bill as he is concerned to defend his own record on travelling around the London underground.
In the outer-London boroughs, new buildings are bought off plan and some never even have the cellophane unwrapped. Global Witness has found that 86,000 properties in this country are owned by companies in secrecy jurisdictions. The Cayman Islands representatives told me, when they came to see me in preparation for the Bill, that they were responsible for 11% of the property investment in Britain, pushing up prices so that they are unaffordable, and young people’s home ownership in this country is now at an all-time low.
The new register promised by the Government in 2015 has been put back by six years. There must be a suspicion that this secrecy continues because some senior Tories use it. Just one example will suffice. Lord Sassoon was revealed by the Paradise papers to have been a beneficiary of a Bahamas trust fund that has sheltered a family fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars, yet he was a Treasury Minister and the man charged with presiding over the Financial Action Task Force—the very body tasked with setting the standards to combat money laundering.
We are going to pursue all these issues over the coming weeks. I cannot do better than quote the global summit communiqué, which said:
“Corruption is at the heart of so many of the world’s problems. It erodes public trust in government, undermines the rule of law, and may give rise to political and economic grievances that…fuel violent extremism. Tackling corruption is vital for sustaining economic stability and growth, maintaining security of societies, protecting human rights, reducing poverty, protecting the environment for future generations and addressing serious and organised crime…We need to face this challenge openly and frankly”.

Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I want to start by making clear that I think this is a very good Bill. It is clearly the right approach to take in these circumstances and a good administrative measure. It delivers sensible and orderly governance and addresses quite rightly the post-Brexit situation and the new  framework for implementing sanctions. My purpose in this debate is to suggest two ways in which the Bill can be improved further.
First, I draw the Foreign Secretary’s attention to an area of the Bill that the Minister for Europe and the Americas understands extremely well. Sanctions regimes inevitably affect the peace-building work that humanitarian agencies do in some fragile and difficult places, and in particular key NGOs operating in sanctioned countries. I pay tribute to the remarkable work that is being done by British NGOs in some very difficult parts of the world; I am thinking, for instance, of Syria and Yemen.
Clare Short, the distinguished former International Development Secretary—she set up DFID—and I gave evidence to the Select Committee on the difficulties that can arise for the agencies on occasion. They can fall foul of terrorism measures, which adversely affect their life-saving work. There are difficulties in working in lawless areas, which inevitably involves negotiating with some extremely bad people. Under the regime that the Foreign Secretary is ushering in, the Bill will bring much greater clarity for donors who deliver via NGOs and for banks worried that they may fall foul of the regulations. It will help to reduce bank de-risking—I have heard of NGOs not being able to maintain access to their bank accounts or to transfer funds because of the regulations—when banks fear that they may breach sanctions by providing banking services. I hope the Bill will reduce banks’ concerns, assist transport and logistics companies in their work, help NGOs to access formal banking channels, and reduce or eliminate possibilities for remittancing, which, as Members on both sides of the House will know, involves a far bigger transfer of funds to the poor world than international aid.
The Geneva convention states that humanitarian aid be provided to those most in need, without discrimination. The Bill has the capacity to empower leading UK and experienced international charities to carry out our international obligations under such conventions yet more effectively. Building on that, we want to see a general licensing system for financial transactions for the provision of goods and services, which are essential to the delivery of critical aid, for individuals and entities that may be located in areas covered by sanctions.
My first point is that, while accepting that the Government have international obligations in respect of sanctions regimes that inevitably have an impact on the Government’s ability to deliver those commitments in full and on all occasions, the Bill nevertheless has the power to improve this area greatly. I hope the Minister for Europe and the Americas—as I have said, he has a very strong understanding of these matters from his time as an International Development Minister—will say a word or two about that tonight.
My second point is about an area in which the Bill can be improved. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who led for the Opposition. It builds on the important comments made recently by David Cameron, the former Prime Minister about the Magnitsky rules and the Magnitsky amendment, and I hope that the Bill is susceptible to improvement in that respect.
In spite of our self-image as a country that lives by the rule of law, the reality is that officials from autocracies around the world who are guilty of appalling crimes come to London to live safely and comfortably without  much interference from us. There is now a mechanism to prevent this, which is used by the United States and other countries, called the Magnitsky Act. It is named after the Russian whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, the appalling treatment of whom was described by the hon. Lady. The Magnitsky Act freezes the assets and bans the visas of human rights violators from around the world. The State Department recently published its Magnitsky list, which includes the son of Russia’s general prosecutor, a general from Myanmar implicated in ethnic cleansing, the ex-dictator of Gambia, a shady international fraudster from Israel and a retired Pakistani colonel suspected of organ trafficking. Alarmingly, every single person on that list is able to travel to the United Kingdom.
Last year, Parliament took an important step to combat this impunity by passing the Magnitsky amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill, under which human rights violators can now have their assets frozen by the Government. Unfortunately, the law is narrowly defined and does not match the standard of other Magnitsky laws around the world. For example, it does not address the issue of visas, and it places a huge burden on the Government in going to court to obtain an order to freeze assets, rather than giving my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the power to do so by decree.
The Magnitsky amendment to this Bill—I very much hope it will be considered in Committee or, if not, on Report—would bring our legislation into conformity with Magnitsky Acts around the world. Any amendment would define precisely the types of human rights violators to be sanctioned, and most importantly, it would follow an example set by the United States and other countries by placing a requirement on the Government to report annually to Parliament on how effectively the sanctions regime is being used. In my judgment, we should not allow the Government to declare victory over human rights violators with the passage of a law that never gets implemented. I believe that such an amendment may well attract support from all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I submit that, if passed, it would bring this aspect of UK law up to international standards.

John Penrose: As the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, I am listening very carefully to what my right hon. Friend is suggesting. He mentioned existing legal powers. Does he have any sense of how often they are being used at the moment, even though he believes they are relatively narrowly defined?

Andrew Mitchell: It is early days, but I think the existing powers are being used rather less than my hon. Friend and I would wish, and I have read out a list of people who are sanctioned by other countries, but not sanctioned by the UK. That was my second point.
My final point relates to the much discussed issue of open registers and the overseas territories. The House will recall the actions of the coalition Government and Britain’s leadership at the G8 in tackling tax evasion and tax havens. I thought the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was a touch too curmudgeonly in acknowledging the extent to which the coalition Government made real progress on those matters. The UK has introduced publicly accessible registers of people with significant control, abolished bearer or anonymous shares and  introduced unexplained wealth orders, while the anti-bribery law was finally introduced by the coalition Government. Britain has a proud record of world leadership on this under a Conservative-led Government.
This is the fourth occasion on which I, along with my right hon. and hon. Friends—under the able, cross-party leadership of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—have tried to coax the Government into visiting on the overseas territories the same level of openness and transparency as we have in this country. Let us be clear on the constitutional position, which the Government set out in 2012:
“As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”
The overseas territories themselves recognise that they gain hugely from their relationship with the United Kingdom.
The overseas territories have been resistant to this argument for three reasons. The first—let us call it the Dutch Antilles argument—is that if they have open registers, all the hot money will head off to other less law-abiding jurisdictions. Leaving aside the issue of whether any decent person should wish to handle hot money obtained through corruption or worse, the fact is that the international consensus is to bear down on such havens, and their footprint is narrowing. Indeed, havens that embrace such transparency will secure a business advantage precisely because their legitimate business will no longer be tainted by fears of the reverse. There is an understanding of this point in at least some of the overseas territories, which, if I may put it this way, camp on the prayer of St Augustine: “O Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.”
The second argument, which we must address head-on, is that the overseas territories’ private registers are already available to lawmakers and regulators such as the Inland Revenue. The territories proudly say that they can turn around inquiries from HMRC within hours. This is commendable, but it completely misses the point. That fact is underlined by the recent release of information by journalists, which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned. Registers must be open—to civil society, the media, journalists, non-governmental organisations—if all the relevant dots are to be joined up, as the release of the Paradise papers so clearly shows. With the best will in the world, the regulatory authorities are not in that business, and narrow questions from regulatory authorities simply do not suffice.
Finally, I come to the point made movingly by the Foreign Secretary that many, although not all, overseas territories suffered an existential calamity from the recent hurricanes. The whole House will share his concern. I am sure the whole House can assist by agreeing, in any amendment, a longer but definitive period of time in which this reform in the overseas territories should take place.
Around the world, the UK is looked to and respected for its leadership on international development. Helping the poorest in often far-flung places is written deep into this country’s DNA. It is who we are as a Parliament. The appalling but temporary crisis afflicting Oxfam will not change that. We have an obligation, not least to our own taxpayers, to champion transparency and openness, and to have zero tolerance towards corruption. The highly respected Africa Progress Panel has shown that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo more than £1.5 billion of stolen funds and taxes have disappeared. These are funds stolen from some of the poorest people on the  planet, who by contrast live in one of the richest mineral and resource-endowed countries in the world. As the World Bank has made clear, the money stolen from the people of Africa through unpaid taxes or concealment dwarfs all the foreign direct investment and international development money that flows into Africa each year. Much of that money ends up salted away in the tax havens I have described. We owe it to the poor of Africa, as well as to our own taxpayers, to take the action we can to bring about an end to this scandal.
I urge the Government, on this fourth occasion, to look very seriously at the amendment that will undoubtedly be tabled by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) on Report, if not before. Four times we have been around this track. There is significant support on both sides of the House for that amendment. I urge those on the Treasury Bench to look very seriously at whether they can accommodate the House of Commons on this point.

Alison Thewliss: This is another Bill that has been caused by Brexit. EU co-operation has been crucial to sanctions and anti-money laundering, and we have moved quite far along the road together as friends, neighbours and colleagues. A lot of concerns about the Bill have been voiced in relation to the justification of proportionality, and whether it takes us in the right direction to give us the opportunity to correct the flaws in our own systems.
Sanctions, as other hon. Members has said, are effective when we have co-operation, particularly as an EU block. That reflects the limitations of sanctions from the UN Security Council, because there is not always agreement among its permanent members. We need to find our place. Our place is not in the EU, as it was, but it is not entirely as other states are in the world. We need to find out where we are. Tom Keatinge from Royal United Services Institute has said that we may have greater flexibility, but we will certainly have less influence. Ministers need to be reminded of that. I see that the Foreign Secretary has scuttled off without hearing me, which is kind of him. Without the active co-operation and engagement of Ministers with the EU, we will not be able to be the most effective at imposing sanctions. We should not pour our own collective efforts over the years down the stank just because we are leaving the EU. Unilateral sanctions bring with them a recognised risk that while we might want to do the right thing there may be repercussions. Being a part of EU collective action cushions us to an extent from that risk. We do not want to be marginalised in the world. We must take care to make sure that does not happen.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady makes a valid point, although I have a different opinion on Brexit. Does she not agree that our ability to implement sanctions and address money laundering are essential components of our exit from Europe and that it is vital we have the same protections in place in the international market? We must look at the possibility of even enhancing them and making them even stronger.

Alison Thewliss: I agree that we perhaps can and should enhance what we do, but we must take care not to lose what we have so far. We must not lose that co-operation and sense of common purpose against evils in the world, which we have had as a part of the EU.
I support the points on human rights made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). Ministers did not quite recognise the point that paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h) in clause 1(2) are in the Bill because they were put there by a Labour Lord. She may have made that point, but I did not want to let it pass without having recognised it. The Government should not be taking credit for things they did not do and did not put in the Bill. Those paragraphs should be in the Bill. Anything that can enhance the importance of human rights in the Bill should be there.
The NGO sanctions and counter-terrorism working group, chaired by Bond and the Charity Finance Group, has asked for protection in law for humanitarian and peace-building work, as that is, to a degree, currently inhibited by the EU regulatory framework on sanctions. As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out, aid operations in parts of the world that are extremely dangerous and under sanctions from the UN and the EU still have to have aid workers. They have to build up relationships on the ground. They may not be comfortable with them and they may be difficult, but aid would not happen without them.
Currently, there is not sufficient protection in the Bill. There is reference to general licences with a bit more focus on guidance. Clause 37(1) states that the Minister who makes the regulations must issue guidance, but clause 37(2) states only that guidance “may” include guidance about compliance enforcement and disregards. That is not concrete enough. The guidance should be more certain, so that people know the regime they are working under, know the risks involved in what they are about to do and know if there will be any comeback from the actions they take. I do not think that that is clear enough, and I would like to see improvements in this area of the Bill. More concrete assurances are required.
That concern is shared by the banks. The UK Finance briefing on the Bill says that there is a fear of misuse, but there has to be a way to get around that. It provides the example of banks avoiding any transactions whatever with Iran, due to the risk of being sanctioned by the US—its sanctions regime is far-reaching. That risk alone has a chilling effect on its transactions in that area, regardless of any actual certainty. Sanctions will have an impact on such countries for many years to come, even after sanctions have ended. Banks need to have the confidence that they can deal with a country consistently over a number of years without falling foul of sanctions that suddenly reappear. The people working in such countries need to interact with donors, banks and transport and logistics companies. They need comfort on that. They need to buy fuel. They need to buy mobile phones. They need to make payments to move about the country and to let aid flow. For example, it is not possible to move around Yemen because there are different forces imposing different visa regimes. Moving around the country may involve making payments that fall foul of sanctions.

Stephen Kerr: Is the hon. Lady in effect agreeing with the Law Society of Scotland’s interpretation of the need in clause 1 for a list of all sanctions, including descriptions of any designated person and types of sanction imposed, and exemptions from such sanctions? Is that the thrust of the point she is making, because I agree with that?

Alison Thewliss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for agreeing with me. It is very rare and very nice, and I thank him for it. Yes, there has to be a good deal more clarity. I welcome the Law Society’s view, because that is not clear in the Bill. If people are working in that environment, they need certainty. For aid to flow and for banking transactions to flow, there has to be clarity.
UK Finance seeks further detail in clause 18 on extra-territorial application. It wants to know exactly what a UK element constitutes and what its reporting obligations might be under that regime, because it is not entirely clear.
Scrutiny and transparency are somewhat lacking. There is a lot of scope in the Bill for Ministers to create significant new criminal offences through secondary legislation, some of which would carry a sentence of 10 years in prison under clause 17(6). It is constitutionally unacceptable for that type of thing to be created by Ministers, and it is not just me saying that. The House of Lords Constitution Committee wants beefed-up parliamentary scrutiny, and the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that the provisions
“confer exceptionally wide powers which are capable of being applied to a very wide range of persons, with a very wide discretion being given to Ministers to determine the persons against whom sanctions measures may be applied.”
We should be concerned about that and seek corrections later in the process.
The Secretary of State, who has left his place, may not make decisions in haste, but we have to be concerned about the future. This not a Bill for just now, but for many years to come, so the powers that we put in it are very important. The European Scrutiny Committee currently looks at EU sanctions that go through. We need to know what scrutiny process in this place will replace that, because it is important to ensure that things are being done properly and are above board.
At clause 21(4)(a) and (b) and clause 25(3)(a) and (b), a review process of three years from the laying of a sanction is mentioned. I would like clarity from the Government about why that is three years, because I understand that in the EU process it is only one. The Secretary of State said that a person who has been subject to a sanction has the ability to request from him that it is reviewed. Given that circumstances change and given the way of the world today, perhaps three years is a little too restrictive. We might want to push that down a bit further, or at least give scope for it to be varied, given the circumstances.
Clause 41—a Henry VIII clause, which has the power to authorise additional sanctions—is very like the other clause that I just mentioned, and again, the Lords Constitution Committee had concerns when it looked at it. The clause allows the amending of the definition of sanctions and puts a lot of powers into the hands of Ministers. What is the mechanism, the clause or the parliamentary check on that? Where is the means for Parliament and Committees of the House to have their say on the scrutiny of that? It is fundamentally important to have checks and balances in the system.
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on responsible tax, as is the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and I am pleased to see her amendment on beneficial ownership. I look forward to hearing her later on in the debate hopefully  talking about that a wee bit more. There are a lot of issues about working with overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Much as I do not wish the House to legislate on Scottish matters, I do not want us to legislate for overseas territories or Crown dependencies without consent. That is very important. If we want to get buy-in and compliance, imposing things upon people may not necessarily be the best way to do it.

Sammy Wilson: The hon. Lady has hit on a very important point. If changes are to be made in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, it must be by persuasion, rather than imposition. Does she agree that so far, by using persuasion, significant changes have been made in transparency in those countries? That should perhaps be the thrust of future Government policy to ensure that these areas do not become places where money can be hidden and laundered.

Alison Thewliss: We have to be very careful. To an extent, we push people and give them a carrot, and in a sense, we have a stick. We have to weigh up in all of this where exactly they are on that continuum and with compliance. Will Ministers tell us what conversations they have had with the likes of Guernsey and Jersey? Do they have confirmation of a permissive extent clause? I am very keen to see open registers. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield laid out some points on that excellently. If the registers are there, they should be publicly available. We want to see transparency everywhere, but we also need to bear in mind that we have a long way to go on ensuring that everything that we do is absolutely correct and proper.
There are clearly issues and disputes among people about their interpretation of the proposals. Having read a submission from Jersey and Guernsey, I know that their account of affairs is quite different from other people’s. Perhaps we will have time in Committee to discuss this a wee bit more, take evidence and see in more detail exactly what needs to be done, how far people can be pushed, cajoled or brought along, or whether or not we need take this action and the extent to which it has a different force.

Margaret Hodge: I am intrigued by the hon. Lady’s contribution. We all want to move forward on the basis of consent, but I slightly disagree with her about how fast the overseas territories are moving. It has been five years since David Cameron first encouraged them to develop public registers of interest. Will she give us some indication of when she thinks that the broader interest of having those public registers and the role that they could play in tackling financial crime would override her absolutely instinctive desire to seek consent in moving forward?

Alison Thewliss: I agree. That is the point I was trying to make, fairly badly I suppose: how long do we leave it? Has it been five years with no sign of anything, or five years with some sign of something? We need more conversations to see exactly where things are, but I am keen to support the right hon. Lady’s amendment.
There is slightly more concern about overseas territories such as the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda. When we look at the extent of the Panama papers and the Paradise papers, we cannot fail to be deeply concerned  by the extent of nefarious transactions, out-and-out theft and money laundering, particularly when it involves, as other Members have said, the siphoning—the guzzling —of funds from countries whose populations can least afford it. We should be deeply concerned about that, and there seems to be little indication that they will comply at all. Perhaps there is a different approach from the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories on how willing they are to comply with what has to be done to make things transparent and open.
Moving on to part 2 and clauses 43 and 44, on the progress towards beneficial owners of overseas entities. This is very encouraging, but again the thing with the Bill is that action is required. Action is required to check up on all these companies and registrations. Action is required on enforcement and prosecution, and enforcement action requires agencies, intelligence, people and boots on the ground to make sure that it is done. It is fine to have law, but if we do not have anybody to enforce it, there is absolutely no point at all.
Scottish limited partnerships are a particular example of where things are not being enforced. This was bequeathed to me by Roger Mullin, and I am very grateful. It is estimated by Richard Smith and David Leask, who have been working hard on this issue—hon. Members will have seen some David’s reports in The Herald—that an estimated 20,000 to 28,000 SLPs are of concern. The Herald recently reported that a former president of Peru has been accused of taking £4 million of bribes that have been funnelled through a shell firm based in Scotland. These things should be checked up on and enforcement action should have been taken, but SLPs have become a cover for all manner of murky and dubious behaviour.
As Transparency International and others have said, the missing link in all this is Companies House, because it does not have the duty to refuse a company’s registration; it has to register the company. It does not check up on whether it is legitimate, or whether the people who are registering it actually exist, and it is less compliant than the agents who use it, so there is no benefit to someone going through an agent if they can go through Companies House and avoid all the scrutiny. We have an opportunity in the Bill to close that loophole, because for me, Companies House is ignoring its money laundering duty.
There are wider concerns about shell companies. I invite the Minister to look at New Zealand, which was in a similar situation. However, its regulations have seen a near eradication of its 5,000 shell companies, which were registered to only about a dozen addresses in New Zealand. Part of the solution was a requirement for a New Zealand-based director, which made a huge difference almost overnight.

Paul Sweeney: Another interesting example from the recent Labour Government in New Zealand is the idea that they could ban the overseas ownership of property. Given the huge inflationary pressure in the UK housing market, usually from the opaque overseas ownership of UK property, perhaps we ought to consider that measure in this country as well.

Alison Thewliss: Yes, that would be a very useful addition. The Secretary of State did not answer the questions on the fifth money laundering directive: how it will be transposed; how it will be scrutinised; if there  is a transitional phase; what that transition will look like; how we will prevent any loopholes; and how we will make sure that criminals do not exploit that transition.

Alan Duncan: Perhaps at this stage I can give the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) the answer they are seeking on the fifth money laundering directive. It will be published in the summer of 2018 and member states will have 18 months to implement it. That will be after we leave the EU, so whether we or Gibraltar are legally required to transpose will depend on the terms of the implementation period, which of course are under negotiation.

Alison Thewliss: That sounds like a vague, “I don’t know” kind of answer.

Helen Goodman: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to ask the Minister whether the powers he is taking in chapter 3—temporary powers in relation to EU sanctions lists—will not give him the power to enforce the fifth money laundering directive.

Alison Thewliss: That is a very good question. I do not know whether the Minister wants to take this opportunity to answer it—perhaps not. He has heard the question, so I need not repeat it.
Finally, I want to refer to the Scottish Government, because aspects of the Bill reflect some of the powers that lie within Scotland. The Court of Session is referred to in clause 33(2) and clause 34(2). What consultation has there been with the legal profession in Scotland and with the Scottish Government on that? On clause 47 —“Regulations: general”—the power to change devolved legislation under the negative procedure is really not cool. It is not just me who objects to this; the Library briefing states that this will
“enable ministers to make supplemental, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions repealing or otherwise amending existing legislation, including devolved legislation.”
Lord Judge referred to this clause as “monstrous”. Has the Scottish Government been consulted on this provision? What has the Minister got to say about this? This power grab, hidden on page 35 of the Bill, is something that I will seek to amend in Committee.
I support any moves to improve the scope of the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Bill constitutes one piece of a patchwork of laws that are currently going through Parliament to create a post-Brexit framework of legislation, but it is potentially much more than just an enabler for the UK to implement sanctions post Brexit. Thinking about the Bill, it became clear to me how many scenarios it will actually cover, from sanctions used as an alternative to military or technological warfare to sanctions used to express the protection of national sovereignty or to counter financial corruption or human rights abuses, and in each case at state or individual level.
In short, I think that this is a good piece of legislation that will address the mechanical issues that we need to implement. As the Foreign Secretary has said, it recognises that the majority of sanctions implemented by the UK are derived from UN Security Council resolutions or  EU multilateral agreements. In practice, our EU and domestically derived powers to implement multilateral sanctions and any domestically generated ones will be limited by redundant or inadequate UK legislation. Therefore, mechanically, the Bill does the job.
I have seen the Lords’ amendments to the Bill. As is so often the case, the other place has done a thorough job of tightening up these inherently intrusive provisions to provide more focus and to take on board human rights considerations and reporting requirements. There was also a significant narrowing of the Henry VIII powers to create new sanctions, which is generally to be welcomed.
However, there is of course much more to consider than just whether we can practically implement sanctions. There are also the policy questions of what types of sanctions we want to issue; to what extent we wish to continue following the sanctions regimes of various national groupings, or whether we increasingly want to assert our own new policy post Brexit; and how our view ties in with our wider policy objectives on the trade and security fronts going into our Brexit negotiations.
In that context, I recognise and strongly support how the Prime Minister spoke out recently in Munich, and before that in her Mansion House speech and on her visit to Estonia, against Russia meddling in elections and planting false stories in the media to “weaponise information”, and also against its aggression towards eastern Europe, which is threatening the international order. However, I suggest that this admirable and strong rhetoric needs to be backed up with more specific proposals showing how and with whom we intend to use sanctions in the post-Brexit world. I was somewhat surprised that more space was not given to that policy issue in the Foreign Secretary’s speech this evening. Yes, of course trade policy will be vital post Brexit, but so will our ability to protect our trade interests and our wider democratic values.
More to the point, if we do not stand up, engage on this issue and lead in the way that many countries expect us to, our authority and influence could quickly disappear. The UK was a party to the Budapest memorandum, by which Ukraine renounced its nuclear weapons in return for what it thought would be peace with Russia. But when it came to Europe taking ownership following the betrayal by Russia and its occupation of Crimea and east Ukraine, it was France and Germany, rather than the UK, that led on sanctions.
Is that a portent of post-Brexit Europe, with reducing UK influence? If we do not lead, will we simply fade away to relative international insignificance, in the same way that a couple of months ago the UK lost its seat on the International Court of Justice for the first time since its foundation in 1946? I repeat that we need leadership on this issue as to where we want to place ourselves as an international player, if we are no longer the global superpower we once were.
The key emerging issue on our future trade with the EU is that of regulatory alignment—whether we have it at all and, if so, whether it should be implemented by our choice or by tying ourselves to future changes through membership of the European economic area, for instance. The debate over alignment also holds for sanctions, but with a key difference, I believe: barring the extreme positions on the far left and the UKIP-style  non-interventionist right, most of us would agree that close co-operation with the EU and the US will remain vital, and perhaps even more so now that we are possibly to lose our seat at the EU table and lose the leading role that the Foreign Secretary referred to in his speech today. That seems to have been confirmed by the Prime Minister in Munich last Friday, when she said that the UK will be leaving the EU’s common foreign and security policy.
Finding a new policy is therefore vital. It is no coincidence that Russia is delighted with the idea of Brexit, not least because of the potential weakening effect on the western alliance. It must be a key objective that we minimise that effect. We can see the importance of blocs in how Russia and China have been attempting to undermine UN sanctions on North Korea. Without a concerted US and EU insistence, what chance would we, the UK, have had of stopping recent Russian and Chinese abuse by acting alone? The answer, I fear, is very little, despite having the fifth biggest economy in the world.
In that regard, the more experts in this area that one listens to, the more one comes away with the understanding that the most effective sanctions regimes are those put in place by multiple countries. UK unilateral sanctions placed on Russia following its murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 may have been right in principle, but they were seen to have little impact in practice. On the other hand, the EU, as the largest trading bloc in the world, can pack a heavy punch when it implements sanctions, as the figures show it is increasingly being prepared to do.
Alignment is therefore in our interests, but we need to ask what form it should take. Should we align like the neutral Swiss or Norway, and not have a seat at the table or determine policy but just join in with the others? Personally, I would see that as a failure of our long-held responsibility to engage and help lead the free international community.
My view is that, for sanctions, we should negotiate a position with the EU whereby we keep a decision-making and voting seat at the table. Whether that is done via some form of membership of the EU’s Political and Security Committee or through a new body is what we should now be considering. In Munich last week Mr Barnier called for an “ambitious partnership” that is “broad... beneficial and balanced”. I think that we should take him up on that invitation.
From a UK business perspective, there could be severe dangers associated with unilateral action. It could result in British companies being much more easily impacted by counter-sanctions imposed by the targeted regime, and it could have the additional regulatory headache involved in multiple export licence systems.
Finally on sanctions, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), I turn to the financial crooks, drug and people-smuggling barons and human rights abusers who are laundering more than £100 billion through the UK every year. We do not want that money here, and hopefully the asset freezing provisions of the new Criminal Finances Act 2017, including its Magnitsky human rights abuse amendment, will help, although some action from the Government would now be welcome.
However, it is not just about the money. We do not want these people or their families here, enjoying the rule of law and standards that they so blatantly disregard  in their own countries. I should like to see a new visa-based regime and a list system. As every Russian opponent of the Putin regime will tell us, it is exposure and publicity that such people fear the most. At a time when the United States has just issued a further list of people whom it is only considering adding to its public Magnitsky list, I would appreciate an explanation of why Ministers continue to keep the banned list private here in the United Kingdom.
On the subject of anti-money laundering, let me say that it would be very helpful if the Government produced their long-awaited anti-corruption strategy. Many anti-corruption themes need to be pulled together and acted on. Let me issue a plea for moderation, common sense and risk assessment to be given more consideration in that context. That plea comes from the thousands of people who are ever more frustrated to hear that £100 billion of black money is being laundered in the UK while they have been banned or delayed from opening simple bank accounts for some petty, spurious or jobsworth reason.

Margaret Hodge: The Bill commands general support on both sides of the House, and, like the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who made an excellent speech, I welcome it. As currently drafted, however, it fails to include one vital measure that would at a stroke transform Britain’s contribution to the fight against money laundering, tax avoidance and evasion, corruption and financial crime. That measure has been debated many times in both Houses, and is strongly supported by parliamentarians in all parties and by the all-party parliamentary group on responsible tax.
We simply want to ensure that British overseas territories, many of which constitute the leading tax havens in the world, have registers of beneficial ownership that are public and open for anyone to interrogate: businesses, individuals, the press or civil society. I for one have had enough of the endless rhetoric proclaiming that Britain is leading the global fight against corruption and money laundering. The reality has to start to match that rhetoric, because at present it does not. By failing to insist that our overseas territories have public registers of beneficial ownership, we are complicit in facilitating the very corruption that we claim to want to eradicate.
Our overseas territories play a central role in the scourge that is corruption, tax evasion and money laundering. Of the 200,000 companies exposed in the Panama papers, more than half were registered in the British Virgin Islands, a UK overseas territory. More than half the offices of the law firm Appleby that were exposed in the Paradise papers are located in UK-controlled tax havens, and 90% of the world’s top 200 global companies have a presence in a UK tax haven. A World Bank review of corruption cases over a 30-year period found that our tiny overseas territories came second only to the vast United States of America among jurisdictions that provide anonymous shell entities for those involved in international corruption.
We all know that the effect of this financial crime is immense, and that the impact on the poorest in the world is particularly pernicious. We in the UK lose money that we desperately need for our schools and hospitals, but developing countries are even more adversely affected. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development has estimated that developing countries lose at least $100 billion a year as a result of tax havens,  and the OECD has estimated that they are costing those countries up to three times as much as the total global aid budget. What happens in our tax havens really matters. Persistent collusion by the UK in enabling them to endure, because of the Government’s failure to clamp down on the secrecy that pervades our British tax havens, is inexcusable.

Jo Stevens: My right hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful speech. Does she agree that whatever is in the Bill, it will lack any credibility if we point the finger at secrecy in other countries but do nothing about the secrecy in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies?

Margaret Hodge: I strongly concur. Interestingly enough, David Cameron recognised that in 2013 when he told the overseas territories to rip aside the “cloak of secrecy” by establishing public registers of beneficial ownership. He wrote to them in 2014 saying that public registers were
“vital to meeting the urgent challenges of illicit finance and tax evasion.”
In September 2015, he accused them of
“frankly…not moving anywhere near fast enough.”
He said that
“if we want to break the business model of stealing money and hiding it in places where it can’t be seen: transparency is the answer.”
When he launched the UK’s public register, he argued that
“it’s better for us all to have an open system which everyone has access to, because the more eyes that look at this information the more accurate it will be.”
I agree with all those sentiments and arguments. All that we are asking of the present Government is that they stand by the promises made by their colleagues, their right hon. and hon. Friends, in a Conservative-led Government nearly five years ago. I also agree with the current Prime Minister, who said:
“If you’re a tax-dodger, we’re coming after you. If you’re an accountant, a financial adviser or a middleman who helps people to avoid what they owe to society, we’re coming after you”.
However, our tax havens are “middlemen”. It is time that the Prime Minister and her Government turned their rhetoric into practical action, and put an end to the nefarious activities that take place in so many of our jurisdictions.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Many of our tax havens, and some of our Crown dependencies, were put on the EU watch list. They had to demonstrate that they were making improvements. I understand that one of the ways in which they could get on to the watch list was for the UK Government to underwrite that progress by indicating that they would support it, which would enable them to avoid being put on the blacklist. Is it not imperative for us to enforce the commitment that we made to the European Union in preventing them from being put on the blacklist by ensuring that they implement what they promised?

Margaret Hodge: I entirely agree. Indeed, if we leave the EU without having implemented reforms that would have an impact on the overseas territories, the EU will blacklist them.
I know that there are many principled Conservative Members—including the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—who care passionately about transparency, and have championed the cause from both the Back Benches and the Front Bench for many years. I urge them all to make clear to their Front-Bench colleagues that they will support a cross-party amendment setting a clear and reasonable timeframe within which the overseas territories would be required to prepare and launch public registers of beneficial ownership. I hope that the Government will listen to the advice of leading Back Benchers on their own side. Those of us who are involved in campaigning for transparency are not seeking short-term political advantage. What we want is an important, sustainable change that will have a lasting impact on the process of stamping out financial skulduggery, and a considerable impact on not just on the United Kingdom’s public finances but those of the poorest nations in the world.
We can never build a global Britain on dirty money. We will not create a strong economy on the back of being the jurisdiction of choice for every kleptocrat and crook in the world. Our British overseas territories will not prosper over time on the basis of being safe havens for illicit wealth. Transparency is an essential tool in the battle against all financial crimes. Exchanging information behind closed doors, which the Government claim is sufficient, particularly disadvantages the very same countries that suffer the most from financial crime and money laundering, because they have the weakest regulatory agencies in operation.
Relying on regulatory bodies is also very much second best. Even our under-resourced bodies such as Companies House are at best reactive in their work on uncovering financial crimes; there is very little evidence that they are undertaking proactive investigations. Indeed, the constant flow of scandals is strong evidence that the system based on the private automatic exchange of information is not working.
Let us consider the case highlighted recently by Global Witness of the $75 million paid by Glencore to Dan Gertler, a controversial businessman accused of bribing senior officials in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to advance mining interests. The money was originally due to be paid to Congo’s state mining company, but following a secret agreement was paid into one of Dan Gertler’s companies registered in the Cayman Islands. Or let us consider the case revealed in the Paradise papers of Jean-Claude Bastos, who managed Angola’s sovereign wealth fund and was paid more than $41 million from the fund via a secretive British Virgin Islands company. The BVI company was itself owned by a series of secretive offshore companies, but the ultimate beneficial owner was Mr Bastos.
Today’s Guardian contains disturbing revelations that North Korea broke international sanctions aimed at inhibiting the development of weapons by using a network of companies based in our tax havens to acquire millions of dollars-worth of fertiliser, coal and other commodities—our tax havens, undermining our national security and that of other western nations. Secrecy enables wrongdoing.
Ironically, the British Government have accepted that argument, because we are ourselves publishing our national register of beneficial ownership. The standard that we accept for ourselves should be the standard we expect  for our overseas territories. To pretend, as the Government do, that the overseas territories are making good progress is nonsense. It was 2013 when David Cameron first demanded public registers; nearly five years later, we are still waiting for a number of the jurisdictions, including Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands, to set up a central register.
Let me take this opportunity to debunk some of the myths that were prayed in aid when this matter was debated in the House of Lords. Raising the spectre of identity theft and personal security risks is wide of the mark. Public registers can have tightly defined case-by-case exemption policies to protect individuals who are genuinely at risk. Ministers claim that no other countries are adopting public registers. Again, that is not true: the EU is currently implementing the fifth anti-money laundering directive requiring all EU members to implement public registers by 2019, including Gibraltar, and we should be implementing that.
Arguing, as Ministers do, that we should not act until others have acted is a wretched excuse. We have been bold in leading the movement to stamp out corruption; we should pursue that course and be proud of it. As the number of tax havens decreases and the noose tightens around the remaining tax havens, our action will make action elsewhere in the world inevitable.
I welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the UK wants to lead a global race to the top in rights and standards. There is no better way of leading that race to the top than by insisting that our overseas territories adopt public registers of beneficial ownership.
Public registers will not undermine legitimate businesses or individuals who want to continue to take advantage of low-tax regimes. They will expose those who seek to hide their money because they have received it corruptly, or who unlawfully evade tax, all too often at the expense of poor people and poor countries.

Anneliese Dodds: On public registers, is it not also the case that firms that are more transparent are often more successful than those that are not? We see that in the examples of Santander, SSE and many others.

Margaret Hodge: My hon. Friend on the Front Bench is completely right.
Finally, while we were all horrified by the destruction wrought by the hurricanes last year, those disasters should never, ever be used as an excuse for allowing kleptocrats, villains and tax evaders to prosper. In a White Paper on the overseas territories published in 2012, the Government stated:
“As a matter of constitutional law the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”
I am urging tonight that the Government use their powers to insist that our tax havens—our overseas territories—put in place public registers in a defined timescale. That is a reasonable demand. Stopping it would create a grim stain on Britain’s reputation as we move to establish credibility in a post-Brexit world.

Nick Herbert: I agree with what the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) said and with what my right  hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said in welcoming the measures in this Bill. I would go further and welcome the steps that the Government are taking to tackle corruption. However, I also agree with the right hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend that we need to go further now on the issue of transparency in our overseas territories—an issue I spoke about almost exactly a year ago in this House. Specifically, it is necessary in the fight against corruption that a public register of beneficial ownership of companies is established.
Much has been made of the effect of criminal activity, the ability of those engaged in such activities to launder money and the impact of the lack of transparency in supporting crime and corruption. The right hon. Lady pointed out that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates the cost of tax havens to developing countries to be some $100 billion a year. These are costs that are falling on the poorest developing countries. It should also be pointed out that tax avoidance costs us, too. It costs taxpayers in developed countries. A 2014 United States Senate report pointed out that the US loses some $150 billion in tax revenues a year owing to offshore tax schemes.
The Panama Papers, and subsequently the Paradise Papers, revealed the extent of the problem. However, as President Obama said after publication of the Panama Papers, the problem is that most
“of this stuff is legal, not illegal.”
That goes to the heart of the issue. Companies are able to operate perfectly legally in environments where there is not sufficient transparency. The losses are legitimate in the sense that they are not unlawful but they are avoiding taxation; the activities may be legally possible, but they are illegitimate morally. They may also, however, involve criminal activity. All of those are reasons why transparency is so important.
That is why it was such a major step forward when David Cameron announced in 2013 that action would be taken and when, in April 2014, he wrote to the leaders of the overseas territories, following the action taken in global summits, and said that Britain wanted the overseas territories, in partnership with us, to publish public registers. As he argued, these were the gold standard in transparency and would support law enforcement. That was the Government’s position at the time, but does it remain their position? They have never said that they will insist that the overseas territories produce public registers, even though the then Prime Minister urged them to do so in the strongest possible terms. I will explain why that is a necessity.
It is not clear to me whether it remains the Government’s position to urge the overseas territories to introduce public registers as soon as possible. That does not seem to be their position any longer. I think they are now saying that the overseas territories should move towards the creation of public registers once that becomes the gold standard globally. If hon. Members and non-governmental organisations have noticed this change of emphasis, surely the overseas territories will have noticed it, too. What progress can we reasonably expect them to make if they have sensed that the pressure from the UK Government to introduce those registers has eased?

Luke Graham: I agree with many of my right hon. Friend’s points about transparency. I also agree with some of the fine points  made by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). My right hon. Friend mentioned a change of emphasis. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I understand from speaking to some of the United States authorities that there has clearly been a change of emphasis. We are getting quite a clear picture from the United States that it is not intending to go all the way with public registers of beneficial ownership, and certainly not as far as we would like to go. Therefore, we need to be clear about where we want to show leadership, but, at the same time, we have a duty to our overseas territories to ensure that, if we limit their economies in some way, we think about other measures that can support them in the short run.

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary for us to show leadership, and I will say more about the support that we will need to give to the overseas territories in that respect.
A number of arguments have been advanced as to why it is not a good idea to require the overseas territories to introduce public registers. The first is that others will take advantage, and that criminal activity will simply relocate if we say that it can no longer take place in the overseas territories without visibility.
That argument is completely without moral credibility. It is also an admission that such activity is taking place in those areas. To say that we should not act because there might be an economic effect as a result of a reduction in criminal activity would be to argue that the Government should never take action against crime. We have to look at what steps might be necessary to compensate for and mitigate those effects, and to support the overseas territories, to whom we have an obligation in many ways. Simply to say that we will not insist on these changes because their economies would be damaged by the ensuing reduction in criminal activity would be akin to arguing that there would be no point in the police arresting a major drugs dealer in the UK because another drugs dealer might sell drugs in his place.
That argument cannot be sustained. If we believe that a wrong is being done to developed and developing countries—as it is—by the absence of transparency enabling tax evasion and worse, it is our responsibility to tackle that wrong by any means we can. If we simply stand back and wait for change to happen, we cannot expect it to do so.
The second argument that is put forward is that the measures are unnecessary because allowing law enforcement agencies specific access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies is better. It might be the case that law enforcement agencies require a particular level of information, and they can get it through the introduction of central registers, which is a welcome initiative, but if people are seriously arguing that transparency is unnecessary for law enforcement, why did we introduce transparency in the UK? It is self-evident and intuitively obvious that transparency is an aid to law enforcement, because law enforcement agencies cannot be expected always to go after criminals. Criminal activity has to be exposed, and publication is a way of exposing and preventing it. It is telling that a lot of this activity has surfaced only because of leaks. We cannot rely on the law enforcement agencies alone, even with the assistance of central registers and the exchange of information, to deal with all these issues. Also, they cannot deal with tax evasion issues  that might be lawful but morally illegitimate. If it was right for the UK to do this, it is right for others to do it, especially our overseas territories.
That leads me to the third argument, which is an important and difficult one. To what extent should the UK insist that the overseas territories do anything? Would we be behaving in a neo-colonialist manner if we did so? This argument has surfaced more recently in relation to the decision by the legislature in Bermuda to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court relating to same-sex marriage. The UK Government made the difficult decision that it was not proper for them to intervene and that this was a matter for the Bermudian authorities. However, we took action in previous years when we reversed the colonial laws that we had bequeathed to the overseas territories in relation to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The very fact of the relationship between ourselves and the overseas territories—and the very fact that we can change the law there by orders in the Privy Council—reveals a relationship that requires us to hold to certain standards.
I accept that there could be unusual circumstances in which the UK Parliament would seek to intervene, but when it comes to global law enforcement, the harm that is being done is so general that it surely justifies action. There is a danger that, if the Government are seen to be stepping back in relation to human rights issues and to corruption, far from winning praise for allowing the devolution of power and the expression of local democratic decision making in the overseas territories, we will actually be harming ourselves and our international reputation for not upholding our obligations to the highest standards. Therefore, on balance, the argument is made not only that we have the power to intervene but that we have a duty to do so if the harm that is being done is otherwise so great.
Let us be clear that the tide is now turning in the direction of increasing transparency. As we have heard from the official Opposition, the EU is adopting measures to ensure that that takes place, and it is significant that the developing countries—those that are most harmed by the absence of transparency—are often the most supportive of these measures. Countries such as Kenyan, Nigeria and Afghanistan are committed to introducing public registers of beneficial ownership. Are we really saying that our own overseas territories will not be required to do so when developing countries such as those are committed to taking that action?
The uncomfortable truth is that some of our overseas territories are the worst culprits when it comes to tax havens. Everyone knows that; the papers that have been published reveal it and the time has come to deal with it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that the time has come to insist that our overseas territories deal with this issue because frankly we will not make progress unless we press them. That is why, if a sensible amendment is tabled to the Bill to set a reasonable timetable for the overseas territories to produce registers of beneficial ownership—an amendment that has cross-party support, that includes commitments to ensure redress for any economic harm and that is respectful of the great economic damage done by the terrible hurricanes to some of our overseas territories—I will support it. I hope that such an amendment will command support  on both sides of the House. This is, after all, the policy set by a Conservative Prime Minister and this Conservative Government, and it is the right policy.
Tax havens harm the world’s poorest most of all. Tax havens harm developing countries, and they harm us. They harm us economically, but they also harm our reputation. We live in an age of accountability and transparency. We must continue to lead this argument and not be behind it, which is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take very serious note of what is being said in the House this evening and to act.

Jo Swinson: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who made a powerful speech to which I hope his Front-Bench colleagues were listening. It is hugely encouraging to hear so many Conservative voices speak out in favour of more transparency than is already being implemented. I hope it is a sign that this House has a centre of gravity for encouraging further action, of which the Government need to take note.
This Bill is sadly necessary if we are to leave the European Union. The very existence of this Bill underlines the negative impact of Brexit. Our international influence is diminished by leaving the European Union. Of course, sanctions and action against financial crime and money laundering are much stronger when co-ordinated internationally, and the European Union has been a successful mechanism for doing just that.
The existing sanctions and anti-money laundering rules are important, because fighting corruption is an important part of protecting our democracy. When I was a Business Minister, I was charged with implementing parts of the accounting directive through secondary legislation and with championing extractive industries transparency through the extractive industries transparency initiative. One of the issues I was always keen to explain is the link between financial crime, which can often be seemingly victimless—we are talking about numbers on a spreadsheet or on pieces of paper—and its very real and significant impact on people’s lives. The extractive industries transparency initiative is about fighting the corruption that we know happens in some developing countries, where vast mineral wealth is siphoned off into the pockets of dictators rather than funding essential public services.
It is important that we recognise that our country is not immune to such practices. Given particularly that London is such a major financial centre, we perhaps have a greater responsibility than other countries to ensure that tough laws are properly enforced to crack down on corruption. Of course, UK tax havens are another area to which that responsibility extends. I totally agree with the points made about the effect on our international reputation when we do not make sure that happens.
On the sanctions part of the Bill, I welcome the UK’s appetite to align with the EU’s sanctions policy in future, although I note that we will not enjoy the influence we currently have on what that sanctions policy should be. It is crucial that we do not diverge from that policy, because we do not want to risk being seen as a haven for corrupt individuals and corrupt money.
As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, there are opportunities in the Bill to provide greater clarity for NGOs that are doing vital work in difficult countries where there may be regimes that are subject to sanctions but, none the less, where those NGOs need to purchase fuel, supplies and food in country. Clause 15 makes sure there are more powers in primary legislation to provide exemptions so that there is legal clarity that what those NGOs are doing is proper and in order, which is important. Some NGOs, and others in the sector, have suggested that there could be improvements in the detail, which can no doubt be discussed in Committee and on Report.
More generally on sanctions, despite the amendments made in the other place, the Bill still hands over too many powers to the Government, and those powers are too widely drawn. Clause 12 is a case in point, as it defines sanctions not in terms of named individuals; it gives Ministers the power to describe groups of people. The potential for unfairly catching individuals in such descriptions is large, and we still need to consider that point. I urge the Government not to look to overturn amendments made in the other place or to roll back the positive changes that have already been made to this Bill.
Various right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, have raised the idea of a Magnitsky amendment. It is important that the UK takes a leadership role on human rights issues, and sanctions responding to human rights violations are therefore important. That means a crackdown on money and on visas, and it should also include a public list of those who are banned or for whom a ban is potentially being considered. I will look with great interest at any amendments tabled on that basis, and my party and I are very much minded to lend support to such amendments.
On the anti-money laundering aspects of the Bill, one part of the UK economy where there is real cause for concern is our property market. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) talked about her experiences when the Public Accounts Committee visited the United States last week. The United States is already ahead of us, with mechanisms to define areas where property transactions and property ownership can be further investigated. The statistics are shocking. As many as three in 10 properties that are investigated have suspicious ownership. The London property market is hugely vulnerable to such intervention. Properties are bought to try to clean dirty money.
Excellent research by Transparency International UK has identified £4.2 billion-worth of property in London that has been bought with suspicious wealth, most of it based in secretive jurisdictions. In praising Transparency International, I should declare a degree of interest. Transparency International has excellent research, and my husband happens to be its director of policy.
The anti-corruption summit in 2016 committed to introducing legislation so that overseas companies that own UK property would have to declare their beneficial owners. We were promised that legislation by April 2018—in two months’ time. That is clearly no longer happening. It has been delayed on more than one occasion, and now it looks like we will not receive even a draft Bill until the summer.

Danielle Rowley: With the UK in a housing crisis, does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill could speed up the property register and help tackle that important issue?

Jo Swinson: I absolutely agree. There is no need for any further procrastination. Officials clearly ought to have been looking at this issue since the promise was made at the anti-corruption summit 2016, and it was expected that something would be ready in time for this year. Even if a draft Bill is being considered for the summer—I recognise that parliamentary time is sometimes a constraint on the Government—there would be real support for the bringing forward of some amendments to this Bill based on what may already be partially drafted legislation, because money laundering is important when it comes to property and understanding who owns it. This situation is just another worrying signal from this Administration about the priority they give to combating corruption, because promises made in 2016 are being downgraded and delayed.
Others have pointed out the missed opportunity in this Bill in respect of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Back in 2015 and the latter part of 2014, I was the Minister who brought forward changes to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill—now Act—to introduce a public register of beneficial ownership of UK companies, and I am proud to have done so. Persons of significant control are now registered at Companies House, and people can now log on and see exactly what is there. I agree that there is a need for additional resources for enforcement to will the means, but that was an important step forward, and I am proud to have been part of a Government who took a leadership role.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable), who was Business Secretary at the time, and to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, because he was absolutely committed to fighting corruption and to playing a global leadership role through the G7 summit and beyond. He repeatedly made it clear that overseas territories should also publish registers. In fact, between 2013 and 2016, the Government sent letters to the overseas territories on several occasions encouraging action, and it is deeply concerning that the appetite has significantly diminished under the current Administration. It is almost as if the Government are now relaxed about the murkiness of financial transactions of the like that we saw revealed in the Paradise and Panama papers and about our overseas territories being used in the UK’s name to hide complex structures under which corruption can flourish. Progress has ground to a halt. If the Government disagree and think that they are as committed to tackling corruption as ever, what have they been doing since 2016? Where are the letters and notes from meetings where they have been encouraging the overseas territories to publish their beneficial ownership registers? I stand ready to be corrected if the Minister can provide that information, because the House would very much like to see it.
The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) mentioned Gibraltar and the fifth anti-money laundering directive when the Foreign Secretary was still in his place. His answer was somewhat vague, suggesting that maybe we would be implementing it, because the UK is already going beyond what is required, but that was not entirely clear. We then heard a response  that was slightly more depressing, if a little clearer, from the Minister for Europe and the Americas later in the debate, suggesting that we perhaps would not need to implement the directive because we may have left the EU by the final deadline for implementation. He knows as well as I that there is no reason to be a last-minute merchant about such things. There is nothing to stop us implementing the directive before the final deadline, so it is absolutely in the gift of the Government to do so. If they are choosing not to, that is a clear decision from this Government to allow Gibraltar not to conform to the provisions of a directive that we deem to be necessary for the UK as a whole.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised Scottish limited partnerships, and I am glad that she did, because they have been abused in major money-laundering schemes. Indeed, they have potentially been implicated in the alleged bribery of European politicians. Such partnerships have been required to file beneficial ownership information since June, but many have failed to do so or, in some cases, have filed patently false information. Again, there is an issue about enforcement.
Many of these issues need to be explored further during the passage of this Bill, which is sadly necessary. The Bill overreaches in some areas by giving the Government too many powers, but in other areas it misses opportunities that we need to take in order to provide assurances that we are taking the necessary and swift action to fight corruption. The Bill is an all right start, but it clearly needs further improvement. We should maintain the positive changes already inserted by the House of Lords, and I look forward to exploring the detailed issues as the Bill progresses through the House.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I also give credit to her husband’s work at Transparency International. I think he came up with the phrase that, as we leave the European Union, we should be “a beacon, not a buccaneer”. That is the spirit in which I approach the Bill: we should look to set the highest standards for transparency and financial probity, not try to get some short-term advantage by short-changing on those important issues.
I want to focus on three matters. The first is sanctions, which I raised with the Secretary of State earlier. I accept that if we freeze other people’s assets, we should not try to take part of them. However, in rare situations when we freeze the assets of regimes that have caused or committed serious offences in our country that have done real harm to our citizens, it is perhaps right to say, “Those assets are there and there is no realistic prospect of getting compensation to the victims in any other way than by using them.” In those rare situations, rather than letting people continue suffering from the injuries that were done to them, should not we be able to use the assets to try to rectify the wrong, if only slightly? I cannot imagine many instances in which that would apply, but it would clearly apply to the victims of the previous Libyan regime, which supplied Semtex to the IRA. I hope that, when the Government consider licensing the use of assets that have been frozen, we would help  those victims of events that took place at least 20 years ago, if we could find a way to do so. How much longer will they be around to benefit from compensation, even if we could agree it with a Libyan Government—if there ever were one that would do so?
I heartily support the arguments for the need for overseas territories to have public registers of beneficial ownership. I do not want to repeat the arguments, but I will add a couple. It is sometimes asked why the overseas territories should have to lead, and argued that they should be able to follow the rest of the world. It is claimed that if they act first, they will be at a disadvantage, lose revenue and business will be driven elsewhere, to even murkier regimes. The problem with that argument is that our overseas territories are such a large part of the market for the activity that we are discussing that, if they do not reform, nobody else will. We cannot follow the market—we are the market here. We have to take a lead. We have to say to our overseas territories, “You have to do this. We don’t want you to be accused of having dirty, corrupt, criminal money. We don’t want you to have it or be accused of having it. The only way that we and you can show that you have clean regimes is to have this transparency.”
I suspect one of the reasons why the overseas territories can attract such large amounts of business is their relationship with the UK, their protection by the UK, the rule of law that we help them have and their access to our financial market. There is a very real link between what they do and what happens here. We therefore have some obligation to act to ensure that they have the same standards as we have. We cannot just wash our hands and say that it is for them and that they are independent and can do what they like. They benefit greatly from their links to us and the time has come for us to say that we need them to move to the same standards as we have and that they cannot be allowed to weaken our reputation. Everywhere else in the world thinks that they are part of the UK. Developing nations say, “What you’ve done is great, but our assets have been stolen and are being hidden by your territories and we can’t get at them or find out exactly where they are.” Everyone thinks that they are part of us and it damages our reputation if they do not adopt the same high standards.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) who said that we cannot force that on overseas territories overnight. We have to give them a sensible and fair timeframe and we would much prefer them to choose to put the transparent register in place instead of our forcing them. I, too, would support an amendment that provided for a realistic and fair timetable, but we need the Government to tell the overseas territories that they want and expect them to do it and that, if they have not done it by the deadline, the Government will make them do it, so that we get that open, clear and transparent standard.
Let us be honest: the Government’s actions in the UK to increase transparency have been mostly extremely good. We have the open register of beneficial ownership for companies, although we need to sort out some of the Companies House details. A few weeks ago, the new power of unexplained wealth orders came into effect. But if devious people can hide from our regime by using our overseas territories, all those things will be for nothing. We need to extend these powers much more widely.
I am not usually keen on our transposing EU directives where we do not need to do so, but it would be a terrible situation if we were not to implement something consistent with the fifth EU anti-money laundering directive and were lagging behind. If we read what is in there, we see that it contains some things that we should do, such as having a cap where we do not have a register of who has a pre-paid card, so that someone cannot spend laundered money around the world using such a card. That is a perfectly sensible measure to take.
The directive also contains provision for the register of trusts in certain situations. It would be a strange situation if the country in Europe that probably has the most trusts was the only one that did not have any transparency. That would hardly aid our reputation for being a clean financial centre, which is what we should be keen to establish. I am not particularly fussed whether the Government implement the fifth directive before we go or whether we introduce similar, equivalent or, we hope, stronger measures of our own, but let us not fall behind on those sensible ideas that the EU has come up with. I am not aware that we opposed them in the EU. I believe that we agree with the direction of that directive, so let us get those things into force.
The third point I wish to cover is the property register. I have served on a few Bill Committees in my time and I have occasionally tabled amendments in my misspent youth; occasionally I have asked for reviews, as that has been the only way of getting things tabled. In general, the Government’s response is, “There is no point putting into a Bill a requirement for a review, as we review things in any case.” Yet in clause 44, on the property register, what we have managed to get is a requirement for three annual reviews of the progress the Government are making on their own policy. I accept that that was the result of a compromise in the House of Lords, but I, too, would love to see real progress made on this property register, as it is an important missing link in our transparency.
I followed that debate in the House of Lords, and I found Lord Ahmad’s argument convincing: if we are going to have this register, we want it to have real meaning and teeth, and if the reward for a delay is that we can have a mechanism in law that means that if someone does not disclose the beneficial ownership of that property correctly, we can prevent them from selling it in future, that is a price worth paying for a delay. That would be a real consequence: if someone does not register who really owns a property, they cannot sell it until they do. That would be a powerful message to send out to say that we do not want dirty money buying property in this country; that if we think someone has brought a property with dirty money, we will impose an unexplained wealth order and try to work out whether we should get that money back off them; and that if they just do not tell us who owns that property, they are not allowed to sell it until they do. That would be a real step forward, so I am reluctantly prepared to accept that we need to wait a couple of years to get those powers in a place that will be effective. I hope that as this Bill proceeds through this House we can have the same assurances that were given in the Lords that the Government are committed to that register and that we are not just left with three years of reviews, at the end of which we have made no progress on that situation. The Government have committed strongly to that register again, and I look forward to it.
If ever we needed a reminder of how important the measures in this Bill are, we need only look at a story again today of a large bookmaker being fined millions of pounds. One of the reasons for that was that it did not prevent money laundering through its shops for several years. I declare that I went to a charity darts tournament sponsored by that bookmaker, to get a donation for a charity in my constituency—that is on the register and I declare it. This just shows that money laundering is not just about large amounts of very clever things moving around the world, as the “McMafia” credits showed; it is everyday activity, and we need everyday businesses to be on their guard in preventing this from happening. So I support the fact that the Bill retains those important powers going forward.

Rupa Huq: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who made a thoughtful contribution on some of the gaps in this Bill. Perhaps it is because I am, with him, the co-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption, perhaps it is because I was our Front-Bench spokesperson on the Criminal Finances Bill or perhaps it is because I am in front of the TV too much at the weekend, but I get the sense that money laundering is everywhere of late.
As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, we heard this morning of the record £6.2 million fine slapped on William Hill for not being vigilant enough in the prevention of money laundering. We have seen how the proceeds of crime have been funnelled through its channels, and the Gambling Commission has said that it must do better—as if it did not have enough on its plate with responsible gambling.
It has just finished, but for a while Sunday night was “McMafia” night—it is now “Homeland” night again in our house—and as the plot unfolded, we saw how billions of pounds can be transferred internationally very quickly, at the click of a mouse on a laptop. It also showed corrupt politicians, violent police, counterfeit goods hawked around high streets and all sorts of other things. It was fiction, but there was some factual basis.
No one so far has spoken against the idea of having such a Bill. The principle is good. No one is saying that we should turn a blind eye to dirty money. My worry is that, as right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have said, the Bill could do better and go a lot further. It is a good start, but the Paradise papers and Panama papers shone a light on a murky world of international finance and taxation working for the benefit of those with access to vast wealth and an army of lawyers—for the few, not the many—when ordinary citizens just want a fair and transparent financial system. So two cheers for the Bill.
The glaring omission, which has been mentioned many times, is that the Government need to work a lot harder to persuade the UK’s overseas territories—and one day, I hope, the Crown dependencies, too—to adopt the same level of transparency as we have in the UK and introduce public registers of beneficial ownership.
It is not for nothing that London is frequently named as the world’s money laundering capital. In 2016, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that the London property market was the primary avenue for the laundering of £100 billion of illicit money a year. As a London MP,  that is particularly galling to me, because my inbox and postbag are full of housing issues, which also come up a lot when people come to my surgeries. We have a housing crisis, with people who want to get a foothold on the ladder and people in substandard accommodation.
It is not enough to think that it is not our problem; otherwise, silence equals complicity in what are becoming industrial levels of tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill will allow us to set our own sanctions and anti-money laundering policy, but our leaving the EU will inevitably damage our ability to influence the policies of the bloc. Britain’s voice will be quieter on the world stage and its global footprint will diminish. We will shrink in our role fighting corruption globally.
Some progress has been made in the adoption of private registers, but not all overseas territories have even adopted one, and if they have, they have not been centrally located or fully populated. Four and a half years on from when the Government tried to persuade the overseas territories to adopt public registers, none has so far done so, and the Government seem to have given up on them. As has been said many times in this debate, only Montserrat has made the commitment.
The ghost of David Cameron seems to have been ever present in this debate. He invited the world to an anti-corruption summit in London in May 2016—how long ago it all seems—and talked about how the public register model should be a “gold standard”. He said that tax avoidance schemes
“are quite frankly morally wrong”.
Again, there is that disjuncture between what is legally possible and what is morally correct.
Fast forward to 2018 and the Foreign Office expects the UK tax havens to adopt the public register model only when it becomes a “global standard”. There is a definite shift there. It is hardly leadership; it is followership, backtracking or a dereliction of duty, if we are being blunt.

Peter Dowd: It is uselessness.

Rupa Huq: Absolutely; my hon. Friend is so correct, as ever.
We all know what happened to David Cameron next: his ill-judged referendum was his downfall. Ironically, the EU seems to be taking the lead as it prepares to implement the fifth anti-money laundering directive. Our chaotic approach to Brexit and the slippage—we do not know what will or will not apply—is why the Bill is necessary. Last December, the EU agreed that all its 28 member states should establish public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies. We can all get behind the reasons: they allow greater scrutiny of information and contribute to preserving trust and integrity in the financial system. More and more countries are committed to implementing, or have implemented, public registers—I am talking about sovereign countries and not necessarily our overseas territories. There were 35 countries with registers at the last count, and with all EU member states required to have them by 2019, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity to build a new global standard.
When that happens in 2019, the UK Government should seize the opportunity to ensure that our overseas territories follow suit as soon as possible. Regulatory  alignment is a popular watchword these days, and we should apply it in this situation. The territories that rely on wealth being stashed away from taxpayers are astute. They do it because they can get away with it, and they use the arguments of competitiveness and security against a centralised register. Our Government continue to drag their feet after so much promise, which is shameful.
The Government’s anti-corruption strategy was hastily rushed out—some Conservative Members did not notice it—because of harrying by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had several debates on it at the end of last year. We kept saying, “Where is that anti-corruption strategy?” and the strategy was hurriedly rushed out at the end of last year. There is full awareness of the importance of public registers, but the strategy states:
“Our ultimate aim is that public registers become the norm. If this were to happen”—
suddenly it has become conditional—
“we would expect the Overseas Territories to follow suit. The government will continue to work with these Overseas Territories to strengthen their beneficial ownership arrangements”.
The Government also promise a statutory review by December 2018. Why not now? It seems we have had a year of nothing, with the smokescreen of a consultation thrown in. People have consultation fatigue and we know what the issue is.
How can the Government aim for something if they are taking no action? It is not good enough. Only when the UK mandates the overseas territories to create the registers will transparency flow, and only then will the big question be sorted, with all its constitutional, ethical and international dimensions—people have talked about foreign aid. It is right to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made, as the all-party parliamentary group will continue to do. I hope that the anti-corruption tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has gone from his place—I would have liked a tsarina—will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.
I should do a short plug for the APPG. We recently had an event where we had the cast and crew of “McMafia” in the building—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was there. It is not just fiction, but is happening in the real world. They launched an app. If people enter their postcode, they can see how many secretive jurisdictions are near them. The programme showed Kensington and these smart central London properties, but it is happening in Ealing. I put in my own postcode. Ealing is the 14th most secret neighbourhood in the country.
We are lucky enough to live in one of the most desirable cities in the world, but it is desirable for the corrupt, too—those with dirty cash to stash and launder. The Government agreed to fix that at least two years ago, but no concrete progress has ultimately been made. There are loads of examples—I will not go into them all now because we could be here forever. There were stories of “from Russia with cash”, Magnitsky was mentioned in the debate, and there is the pop princess from Uzbekistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking had a debate on the Azerbaijan laundromat case, and we have had Bywater Investments and North Korean shell games. The list goes on and on.
This country has a real choice ahead in defining what kind of country we want to be post Brexit. We can put an end to the millions of pounds of stolen money  flowing through London’s luxury property market or we can continue turning a blind eye, kicking the can down the road, saying that we are doing a consultation, pushing these things into the long grass and making London an even more appealing playground for the corrupt.
Thankfully, the other place wants significant concessions on the Henry VIII powers that might have come to pass. We have heard mention of statutory instruments, but this House must be vigilant and ensure that the Government do not try to sneak in more secondary powers through the back door, giving Ministers carte blanche.
Leaving the EU will undoubtedly affect our ability to sanction regimes properly. We will be vulnerable to legal challenges because corporations will see us as an easy target outside the EU. They will have an easier task suing a smaller state. Despite the Bill’s title, only one and a half of its 59 pages are dedicated to anti-money laundering. The Bill is a disappointment and a missed opportunity from a Government who promised much but are short on delivering. It is not just me saying that; ask Christian Aid, Global Witness and Transparency International. My verdict is, “Could do better.”

Julia Lopez: I welcome the Bill, which will not only see us retain our ability to impose sanctions and some of the powers against crime that currently derive from our EU membership, but will pave the way for new methods of tackling terrorism financing and money laundering.
Concern has been expressed that once we are out of the EU, the UK will—out of economic desperation—somehow turn itself into the global laundry for money of dubious origin or market itself as the premier place to stow ill-gotten gains. Sound arguments for a simpler, more competitive UK tax and regulatory regime must never be undermined by the idea of a financial free-for-all, not least because, in an ever more transparent world, London’s reputation as the world’s top financial centre will increasingly depend on it setting and adhering to global standards on financial probity. Meanwhile, as criminals continually update their methods, we shall need our own law and law enforcers to be ever more adaptable and responsive. It is therefore a timely moment to create an independent UK sanctions and anti-money laundering regime that can respond adequately to the forensic, cutting-edge work being undertaken by the likes of the City of London police and the National Crime Agency.
Going forward, the UK might wish to harmonise its own sanctions regime with existing sanctions regimes in order to maximise the impact of those sanctions and reduce the opportunity for legal uncertainty for UK or UK-based firms operating under our new regime. In time, the UK could play a critical role in bridging the growing gap between the EU and US approaches to sanctions, and in pushing for ever greater clarity from both sides to try to mitigate the risk of non-compliance in the financial sector.
As we look ahead, we must be careful of the law of unintended consequences. We must not make operating in certain countries or particular types of business so risky that we either cut ourselves off from legitimate opportunities or push ever greater volumes of business into newer, less robustly regulated parts of the sector.  In that regard, the Government might consider new measures to facilitate information sharing between banks and regulators on suspicious entities or individuals so that we can encourage a proportionate, risk-based approach to whether to take on such business.
I welcome the ability that the Bill gives us to update counter-terrorism financing legislation, as well as clause 44, which commits to a register of beneficial owners of overseas entities. Nobody wants to discourage investment into the UK, particularly if such investment can help to increase housing supply by getting large-scale developments off the ground. None the less, the current approach cannot go on.
For goodness knows how long, I have been writing a book about London in the 21st century, covering the flood of international money into London’s housing market, the use of overseas investment vehicles to pay for that property and the resentment stoked in Londoners when such investment vehicles have been used as mechanisms to shield the proceeds of crime or evade tax, with property left empty. I therefore appreciate the confirmation from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) that the Government believe that foreign owners of British homes and offices should now be treated in the same way as owners of British companies. As he says:
“More than £122bn of property in England and Wales is owned by offshore firms. If they’re clean and reputable…they’ll have nothing to fear. But if murky shell companies have bought British property with plundered or laundered cash, we don’t want them here.”
The register should underline the UK’s commitment to being a strong, reputable trading nation that welcomes clean investment. Those values must surely shape our nation’s future as we chart our new path outside the EU.

Alex Norris: As I have been sitting here listening to the debate, I have had a growing sense of déjà vu with regard to a similar sedentary vigil just before the recess when we debated the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. That is an important piece of legislation that we need as we leave the EU and seek to quickly and safely reproduce the benefits of our EU membership. It is in the same vein that we consider sanctions and anti-money laundering provisions. We must have arrangements in place not only because sanctions and anti-money laundering provisions are important causes, but because we have international duties to fulfil. This must be done, as is widely accepted across the Chamber.
Nuclear safeguards are of course high-impact, but also relatively easy to define and understand. That makes things a bit easier. We have civil nuclear matter, we need it, we want to move it, and we do not want it to fall into the wrong hands. Our current arrangements work, and we want to continue to have the same level of protection and safeguards. We cannot say the same about this area of murky finance, with money moving across boundaries and individuals profiting from criminal activities and then seeking to legitimise that wealth elsewhere. This is an ever-changing world, so our arrangements must be able to keep up. As we have heard very powerfully from Members throughout the Chamber, our current arrangements leave a lot to be desired. It would therefore be remiss of us just to lift  and shift current systems; we should seek to improve them, and I will suggest a couple of ways in which we might do so.
First, I want to address the issue of the EU’s fifth anti-money laundering directive. This has now been agreed in principle between the EU and member states, of which we are still one, but it is scheduled for a phased introduction from next year, presumably falling during a post-Brexit transitional period. We have not had a lot of clarity from those on the Treasury Bench about how we will approach this. I hope that we will not see a request for us to concede a boatload of secondary legislation to Ministers. There was considerable interest about that in the other place, and I think we can do better. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is not currently in his place, said that we ought perhaps to transpose the directive into our law. When we hear the hon. Gentleman talk about transposing EU directives, we really are in a special place.
So what could we do about our sanctions regime? Currently, we lag behind the US and Canada. We need a targeted, flexible approach that promotes human rights and protects innocents from paying the price for the crimes of their leaders. That is why we have heard many voices call for Magnitsky-style amendments to the Bill. I add my voice to that. Such provisions allow us to pick and choose public officials from around the world who have committed human rights abuses or violations, and seize their assets and ban their travel. Such sanctions work because they target the wrongdoer specifically. A broader sanction or embargo at a national level punishes all, and often those who can least afford it bear the burden. Instead, such provisions target the people we need to get to. They would give Ministers flexibility and promote our attempts to meet our human rights goals as a country. We could underpin that—I am very keen on this, and it has not been mentioned yet—with humanitarian impact assessments of any sanctions that the Government impose. When our Government seek to impose sanctions, it is reasonable that we ought to have a clear understanding of their impact on the wider community in the affected area.
With regard to the anti-money laundering provisions, I start with the obvious: it is time for a property register. The initial commitment was made by the Government in 2016; we are now told that it will be operational in 2021. That will not do. This Bill is a good opportunity for us to pick up the cudgels and get on with it. Bricks and mortar is an obvious place to start, where we can disrupt the supply chain and follow the money. That would also have benefits in affected communities through releasing properties for people who actually wish to live in them.
That would help us at home, but we need to take on the broader challenge across the world. We will have failed if we get to the end of the process with a gold-standard piece of legislation—as I very much hope we will—but find that those high standards can be easily circumvented through a British overseas territory or Crown dependency. I know that this is controversial and there are strong feelings on it, but while we have a relationship whereby this Parliament has responsibility for defence, security and foreign relations in those territories, we should continue to take a strong interest in money  laundering, because it sits at the very root of all those things. When the British Virgin Islands is at the heart of the Panama papers and Oxfam rates Bermuda as the No. 1 worst corporate tax haven, we should want to act and use all the tools that we can. Notwithstanding the qualifiers heard from the Government Benches, it is not too much to ask that we should see a public register of beneficial ownership of companies in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
The final way we could improve is by looking at the role of the banking system in preventing money laundering. We know that banks are under pressure to serve the bottom line and that they can have their heads turned when they encounter potentially profitable customers. We also know that relative to estimated levels of money laundering, regulatory fines have been low. When penalties are low, rewards for looking the other way are high. When there is little personal reputational risk, these things can happen.
The current legal framework is inadequate, and we should seek to change it. Two years ago we had a consultation on creating a specific “failure to prevent economic crime” offence, which would have covered money laundering. That was downgraded to a call for evidence, which closed in March 2017. It has been nearly a year, and we have not seen the fruits of that. I know as well as anybody what 12 months can do in life—it has been a big 12 months for me—but it is time we got around to this.
In conclusion, how we approach the Bill will tell us a lot about Britain’s place in the world post Brexit. Do we still believe that we have an outward-looking leadership role? Do we still seek to set high standards for ourselves and others? Are we keeping up with the pace of the modern world and the changing nature of crime? I believe that we ought to want to do all those things, and that we can use this Bill to do so.

Bob Seely: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who spoke so eloquently. I welcome the Bill, but like so many other Members who have spoken this evening, I think we should be doing more.
It is not in our interests to have lax standards. It is in our interests to have the highest standards, which I know the Foreign Secretary and others are trying to achieve. The Bill is not just about finance; it is about power. Our finance system—the western finance system—is a source of power. Russian and Chinese oligarchs, and especially the Russians, use our finance system. That gives us influence over them. This is not just about terrorists, dodgy individuals or drug dealers. This is about changing and influencing state behaviour. I very much hope that Ministers will see it in that guise. With new forms of conflict in the world that we inhabit, financial power is a hard bit of soft power. The power to make rich people poor by freezing their assets should not be underestimated because it is a significant source of our influence.
Other Members, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), have spoken eloquently about the lack of Magnitsky elements in the Bill, which concerns me. There are no visa bans in the Finance Bill amendments, and there is no presumption of action. I remind Members that Magnitsky was a  Russian lawyer who worked for Bill Browder. He was tortured for several months and murdered, and his dead body was put on trial. That is remarkable, even by Russian standards. It would be nice if the Government had more ambition when it came to the Magnitsky elements of either the Finance Bill or this Bill.
The idea that weak or lax standards help the UK to compete in international money markets and international economies is deeply misguided. We are in danger of wagging our fingers at people like the Russians while allowing their state officials, people close to their regime and those on sanctions lists a free light to live here and use the western system.
EN+ was floated recently in the City. It has been reported that US security officials were concerned about the float and raised issues about it, as it may have been used to pay off loans to VTB, a Russian state-owned bank that is subject to sanctions. If that is the case, I would love Ministers to explain to me why it is a wise move effectively to turn a blind eye while the Russians play the sanctions process that we have put on them.
I will touch briefly on the offshore problem. I congratulate Private Eye on the work it has done in recent years to highlight the effects and the extent of offshore vehicles in the UK. When even in a place such as the Isle of Wight we have property owned by companies based in the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Luxembourg or Gibraltar, the system is flawed. Lax standards are corrupting for our country and our financial system and it is short-sighted to see it otherwise; I am sure Ministers will agree. When houses in Belgravia and Hampstead are used as glorified Rolexes for the international kleptocracy, we are getting something wrong.
I very much hope that the Minister will pledge to continue to make aspects of the Bill tighter, consider what can be done about the missing Magnitsky elements and make a commitment to having the highest standards in the Bill, rather than following others.

Bambos Charalambous: As most hon. Members have stated in this debate, money laundering and corruption are huge issues worldwide. Although I welcome some of the measures in the Bill, I do not believe that it goes far enough.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas has already been made aware—it was mentioned in an intervention—that, as part of the recently agreed fifth EU anti-money laundering directive, all EU member states will be required to have public beneficial ownership registers by 2019. I am sure he will confirm that, whether or not the United Kingdom is part of the EU at the time of the directive’s implementation, the United Kingdom would not want any measures that are weaker than those in the directive.
This raises the question of what should happen in the overseas territories. The UK has made a start on a public beneficial ownership register, but more needs to be done in the overseas territories. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) pointed out, the problem is that many overseas territories are tax havens and as such they are home to many offshore companies willing to offer complete anonymity to their clientele, with very few questions asked.
We should note that, despite overseas territories having small populations, half of all global trade passes through them because they are tax havens, and the vast majority  of the transactions are carried out by offshore companies. Let us, for example, take the British Virgin Islands. Despite having a population of only 28,000, it is home to an estimated 500,000 offshore companies, which is 40% of the total number of offshore companies in the world. Many of these offshore companies have complete anonymity and are shell companies working with nominees and powers of attorney to move around vast amounts of money. Most people faced with that information would conclude that there is something dodgy going on.
My right hon. Friend gave examples of corrupt and illegal practices that have occurred in overseas territories tax havens, all of which are because of the opaqueness of the systems that they operate. A fully functioning central, public beneficial ownership register in the overseas territories would be no cause of concern to companies carrying out legitimate business activity. As more and more countries agree to adopt a public beneficial public ownership register, it is inevitable that the overseas territories should follow.
We need to make sure that money offshore in these tax havens is not being used for illegal purposes. If there is an issue, it is that overseas territories have built their wealth on secrecy. If that is the case, the Government should support the overseas territories to make sure activity is based on a legitimate and transparent model of business. The Government should give support to the overseas territories as they transition from financial secrecy to openness.
There is no reason why corporate ownership transparency should cause any problems in the provision of legitimate financial services, especially considering that many other countries will be adopting the principles of transparency registers. The people who are losing out the most are those in developing countries. They are in the greatest need and the billions being diverted away from them could literally be costing lives.
I will conclude by saying that a fully operational public beneficial ownership register in the overseas territories will greatly help to curtail money laundering, corruption and criminal activity, but much more needs to be done than is presently in this Bill.

Vicky Ford: Issues relating to sanctions and anti-money laundering have been dealt with under EU law for many decades. It is absolutely right that we in Britain should treat these matters extremely seriously and make sure that the UK has in its toolbox all the tools that it needs to take action.
The UK has taken the lead in the past. Many of my colleagues in the House have reminded us of their experience when David Cameron chaired the G8 and tax transparency was put at the top of the global agenda. I remember being in the European Parliament at that time, working with the UK Conservative-led Government to increase tax transparency across Europe by introducing country-by-country reporting for banks.
The UK must continue to lead because the City of London is the world’s leading financial centre. The financial services sector is the leading contributor to British finances. It is vital to our future economic success and its success is based on its reputation for trust and transparency. Crime does not stand still, however, and those who want to continue to launder money will continue to try to evolve their behaviour,  moving into new dark spaces, taking advantage of digital trade and finding new ways to exploit behaviour in a virtual world. No country has the tools to act alone and countries must continue to work together. Of course Britain will continue to implement anti-money laundering laws that were set in Brussels: we helped to form those laws. Action is being taken today. In today’s news, we have seen fines against William Hill, HSBC has announced a warning of a potential $1.5 billion fine for its Swiss operations and Latvia’s central bank chief has been suspended.
If we are to continue to take action against money laundering and fraud internationally as well as domestically, we must continue to have exchange of information. Data exchange is key for our security services, our tax authorities and our financial services sector. The vast majority of our financial services companies want to be able to stamp out fraud themselves. I am sure I am not the only Member to receive a phone call from their credit card company warning them that their credit card was being used fraudulently. I was in my kitchen in England while my credit card was being used in a hotel in Turkey. Our companies want to be able to access cross-border personal data because that helps them to fight crime.
Foreign Secretary, you have spoken about building bridges with Europe. You have spoken about building a physical bridge. You have spoken about building a hypothetical bridge. I challenge you to build a digital bridge: a 21st century data exchange bridge, based on the rules of data adequacy. That will ensure we keep the ability to fight crime together across the world.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I agree with many of the comments we have heard today from both sides of the House, which I would summarise as—a necessary start but not good enough, not far enough, not strong enough.
One area I am interested in is arms control, which the Bill misses an opportunity to address. The arms export control system we use in the UK goes hand in hand with the sanctions system we use to stop arms getting to certain regimes. The arms export regime we operate in this country is, of course, underpinned by EU consolidated criteria. There is no mention of consolidated criteria or of bringing the arms licensing regulations into a system such as the sanctions regulations. It is, I suggest, a great shame. The Bill does not touch on that area.
All of this is all very good, but enforcement is needed. Without enforcement, there is no point and the Bill is not worth the paper it is written on. Since 2011, there have been no prosecutions by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of people who have broken the arms export regime or broken sanctions on arms sales. What is the point of introducing a Bill with a raft of sanctions against arms sales to certain regimes if we are not going to enforce them? It is not like in this time, there have not been significant and very credible reports that arms export controls have been breached and that arms have been sold to some of the most dangerous regimes in the world. We have just failed on enforcement because HMRC is under-resourced and these issues are under-prioritised in that department.
Turning to another area, I have a constituent who is a local business owner with a foreign national. She has reported many times her feeling that the company that she co-owns has been engaged in money laundering. She reported it to Action Fraud, Sussex police and HMRC, but for over a year, nothing was done. It took us hiring forensic accountants for HMRC suddenly to realise that hundreds of thousands of pounds might well have been laundered through the company. This was a director who wanted to blow the whistle, but HMRC and Action Fraud were just not interested. That is another example of how what is written in the Bill is all well and good, but the enforcement is just no good.
When Labour Members talk about wanting to give more money to our nurses, teachers and firefighters, we are often mocked by Government Members, who say that we want a magic money tree. It seems to me that a crop of magic money trees is growing with incredible health in some of our 14 British overseas territories. They are very clean because they are laundered daily, and they clearly like the climes—the balmy 32° that it is right now—in the British Virgin Islands. I note that many of the people in the Virgin Islands never really see these trees because they are lovely brass-plate trees.
Maybe it is not the climate that encourages magic money trees to locate in our overseas territories. Perhaps they thrive as part of a protection racket to shelter the very wealthiest in our society from paying their fair share. As we leave the European Union, it is vital that we have the mechanisms in place to replace the sanctions and money laundering provisions of the EU. I commend the Government for taking the first steps, but the Bill falls so short of creating a public, central and open register of beneficial ownership for our overseas territories.
More than 70% of corruption cases surveyed by the World Bank between 1980 and 2010 rely on anonymously owned companies helping to obscure what they are doing. It is the overseas territories that fly the flag of brand Britain and endanger that flag by not opening up—[Interruption.] I am sure that you will have a moment to reply later on, Mr Foreign Secretary. You do not need to chunter from your seat. These corrupt regimes are under the British flag. We have seen in the Paradise papers how companies such as Appleby—I call them crooked Appleby—advertise themselves as respectable offshore sector companies. However, they are now suing The Guardian for telling the truth that six of their 10 offices are located in overseas territories and are involved in money laundering, and what will the Bill do to help people? Not enough.
We might hear from Government Members that we cannot do much on these issues, but a raft of people from overseas territories have written to me, begging us to take action, saying that they see no benefits in the territories for people on the ground from this tax evasion. It does not benefit our overseas territories. It benefits a small, super-elite and if we do not take action on enforcement in our overseas territories, who will? The Bill must go further. If it does not, we must ensure that amendments are forced in Committee and on the Floor of the House because there is cross-party support for ensuring that brand Britain stays clean and that we kick out the dodgy dark money from our country and our overseas territories.

Anneliese Dodds: It is a real pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. The Bill, as many colleagues have indicated, purportedly aims to provide the UK with an appropriate system to stop the corrupt and the criminal from benefiting from our British financial system. I will first consider the sanctions-related matters before looking at the money laundering matters, although they are of course intrinsically linked.
As with much of the Government’s Brexit-related legislation, many concerns have been expressed about the lack of parliamentary oversight of the Bill’s provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) set out, many positive changes were made when the Bill was discussed in the other place, and they must not now be rolled back in this place. Other matters of concern persist, as indicated by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and echoed in the calls for clarity from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly).
We still lack clarity over the extent to which our sanctions regime will be aligned with that of the EU 27. The evidence is clear that sanctions are more effective when imposed collectively—the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Huntingdon made that point very well. I was disappointed by the Foreign Secretary’s comments in this regard, which I thought were contradictory; he simultaneously admitted that unilateralism might not be effective while vaulting the possibilities of a totally independent regime. There are no indications in the Bill of how we will concretely ensure the continued co-ordination that is so necessary in this area.
We heard in the debate some persuasive arguments about the need for stronger commitments in the Bill, not just fleeting mentions, on the necessity for sanctions to target those responsible for human rights violations, particularly those responsible for gross human rights violations, as in the so-called Magnitsky regimes. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) spelled out clearly the reasons for such an explicit approach. I hope that Government Members will have listened to those arguments.
Finally in relation to the sanctions-related provisions, the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for East Dunbartonshire mentioned the need to ensure that measures are appropriately calibrated so that they target criminal individuals and terrorists, not legitimate aid agencies and financial service providers delivering legitimate services. It is essential that we have accurate and appropriately granular mechanisms in that regard.
Let me move on to money laundering. I was very pleased, as I am sure were many Members, about the informative and courteous style of debate that we have had on money laundering tonight. I am afraid that is in contrast to the comments on money laundering from the Government when introducing the Bill, which I thought were disturbingly brief. It is clear that the problem of money laundering is getting worse, not better. I will not go into all the arguments and evidence on that now, because that has been done very ably by other Opposition Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). At the centre of the UK’s problems with money laundering lies a lack of transparency and accountability, both of  which are essential if we are to ensure that the criminal and the corrupt do not profit from our leaky financial system.
On the issue of public registers of beneficial ownership in our associated territories, may I say what a powerful tour de force we have had from the right hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for Sutton Coldfield? I am sure that the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, as a former Home Office Minister, has a huge insight into the damage being done by the lack of transparency in this area, aiding international criminals. The Government must listen to the uncomfortable truth that he has set out so ably tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) set out how long this process has been running, as the Government requested beneficial ownership registers from the overseas territories five years ago. Many Members have indicated that we have had a slippage away from the Government’s initial commitments in this regard. The failure to clean up the act on behalf of some of our overseas territories is having a severe impact on their reputation. As someone who has had many meetings with representatives of those jurisdictions, and who supports them tremendously, let me say that it is not their foes but their friends who are arguing for more transparency, because we see the reputational damage that the lack of transparency is doing to them. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking said, the Government’s failure to act constitutes complicity. I agree with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) that the UK must exercise leadership.
There has also been a lack of clarity from the Government over whether they are minded to follow EU-level developments, particularly the anti-money laundering directive known as AMLD 5. I agree with the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) about many things—we worked together previously in the European Parliament—but I am afraid I cannot agree with her assessment that we know for certain that the Government will continue to cohere with EU-level developments. The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) explained very clearly why we do not have the clarity that we need.
I think it especially important to focus on the regulation of trusts. Under David Cameron, the Government argued against their inclusion in EU registers of beneficial ownership. The Foreign Secretary claimed that the UK was ahead of the rest of the EU with our register of beneficial ownership, but we have been a drag on the EU when it comes to more transparency on trusts.

Boris Johnson: A drag?

Anneliese Dodds: At EU level, we have been. David Cameron argued against the inclusion of trusts in EU beneficial ownership registers, but we now have a chance to change. I can see that the Foreign Secretary is appalled by the idea that we might have acted as a drag in that regard, but I am sure that he will be converted to the cause of more transparency.
As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire rightly mentioned, it is deeply concerning that the timetable for the foreign-owned property register has slipped so substantially. I take on board what was said by the hon. Member for Amber Valley—we already have a  register of sorts, in the guise of Private Eye’s tax haven property map—but that map was created, essentially, by mistake. It was created when the Land Registry released data, by mistake, which was then matched up with Companies House data. The Government should be delivering the register themselves. I appreciate that there should be additional disincentives, but that is not a reason not to act now.
Finally, let me say something about the issue of due diligence in relation to British company ownership. Yes, we do have a public register run by Companies House, but the responses to a series of parliamentary questions that I have tabled have shown that there is little or no oversight of the veracity of the data supplied to it. That is illustrated by the worrying case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), to whom I pay tribute for all his effort to help his constituent. There are not enough resources in Companies House, and there is a regulatory gap in respect of those registering companies with it directly. There are even problems for those who register through company formation providers, many of which have been shown not to be fulfilling their responsibilities. In that context, it may be necessary to launch a pincer movement requiring all such firms to have UK bank accounts: at least they would then be covered by anti-money laundering legislation through the bank account system.
The Financial Action Task Force is due to report next month on the UK’s approach to money laundering and ensuring the integrity of the international financial system. I am sure Members in all parts of the House agree that it would be a huge international embarrassment if the taskforce concluded that the UK Government had chosen not to adopt measures that would help to clean up our financial system. I am afraid I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking that there are grim stains on the UK’s reputation in this regard.
Let me issue one last plea. I have been very disturbed by the Government’s decision not to defend publicly the journalists who were singled out by Appleby. It picked on British companies, the BBC and The Guardian, which were taken to court after releasing details that were in the public interest. Sadly, the Treasury team—I see that some of its members are present—has not yet been willing to condemn that behaviour. I appeal to Ministers, including those in charge of foreign policy, to do so now, and to confirm that those disclosures were in the public interest.

Alan Duncan: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in his opening speech, this Bill is necessary to ensure that we can continue to use sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations to support our foreign policy and national security goals as we leave the European Union. We have had a lively and passionate Second Reading debate, but I sense that the setting up of a UK sanctions regime on our departure from the EU would appear to enjoy the broad support of this House.
It is often invidious in winding up a debate to pick out some speeches but not all, but forgive me, Mr Speaker, if I do that this evening, because I think the two strongest  and most remarkable speeches were those of the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), with whom I worked very closely as his deputy in DFID. I appreciate the passion of the right hon. Lady; we will no doubt debate these matters at great length in Committee and on Report, and we will take on board the strength of the arguments we have heard tonight, and which, of course, we have heard before. Likewise, my right hon. Friend made an impassioned plea for humanitarian agencies to be fully considered, and I will come to that shortly. He also spoke of Magnitsky, as did many Members; I will go into more detail later, but for now I will say that this Bill has wide-ranging powers to sanction people for human rights abuse. On open registers, we share my right hon. Friend’s view on wanting to bear down on illicit money flows; as he said, the registers are open to instant access by regulatory authorities, but I quite understand his view that such action alone does not suffice.
I have a small point to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who asked if we could publish the anti-corruption strategy; we did so in December of last year. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) asked why nobody has been prosecuted for export control offences; in fact, there have been 23 not just prosecutions, but convictions, for export control offences in the 10 years from 2006 to 2016, and a number of these prosecutions relate to exports to countries covered by UN and EU sanctions regimes.
This being a Second Reading debate, I want to dwell on a few key principles contained in the legislation, as I have no doubt that we will discuss the closer detail further in Committee. The first such issue is that of delegated powers. They are rightly coming under scrutiny in this place today. However, it is important to recognise that Ministers implement sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations by using delegated powers now, through secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1972, and this Bill will not change that approach. In fact, in the future Parliament will have greater oversight of sanctions than it currently does, with votes needed in both Houses when the UK acts outside the requirements of the UN, and given the need to respond quickly to global events, the Government believe that regulations remain the best mechanism for implementing and amending sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes.
There is, however, the question of creating criminal offences, as referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and I am confident this will be addressed before Report. We have listened to these concerns and we are working on a solution that we hope will be accepted by those who expressed them in another place. Indeed, Lord Judge, whom we have been talking to, and his colleagues did not disagree that breaches of sanctions should be criminal offences, and we will introduce amendments to fix this and address their concerns in due course.
On procedure, we believe we have the right balance of affirmative and negative resolutions. Regulations that implement UN regimes will be made under the negative procedure; regulations that do not implement UN sanctions regimes will be made under the made-affirmative procedure.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central talked about the ability to amend devolved legislation as being “monstrous”. I think she slightly misunderstands the process here. Sanctions are a matter of foreign policy.

Helen Goodman: On negative and affirmative resolutions, the Minister is choosing to draw a distinction based on the origin of the sanctions—whether they are from the UN or the EU—but would there not be a greater logic in drawing a distinction between individual sanctions on people, which obviously have to be done quickly, and the rules of the game for the regimes, where the House would be reasonable in seeking to be consulted before they are introduced?

Alan Duncan: The reason that we have made this distinction in terms of procedure is that we are obliged in law to implement UN sanctions. Once the sanctions have been agreed at the UN Security Council, the UK has an obligation to implement them under the UN charter. Not to do so would leave the UK in breach of international law—hence the distinction in the procedure that we are using.
Returning to what the hon. Member for Glasgow Central described as “monstrous”, I say again that sanctions are a matter of foreign policy and so are reserved to this Parliament.

Alison Thewliss: Will the Minister give way?

Alan Duncan: No. We consulted the devolved Administrations—that answers a question that the hon. Lady asked—and they did not disagree with us. The ability to make changes to devolved legislation that can be used only to make changes required as a result of sanctions does not injure the devolution settlement. Their primary purpose is for a reserved matter.
Let me move on to the issue of Magnitsky. I recognise the concerns expressed about the importance of taking a stand against individuals responsible for committing gross abuses of human rights. We recognise and indeed share those concerns. I would like to make it clear that this Government are committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights, and this Bill will permit us to do so. We already have a range of powers to take action against those who commit gross human rights abuses, most recently through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act 2017. The Home Secretary also has the power to exclude individuals whose presence we believe to be contrary to the public good, and we keep track of potentially dangerous individuals to prevent them from entering the UK. To complement this, we also have a range of domestic asset-freezing powers.
We are already committed to using sanctions in this area. This is demonstrated by the number of countries against whom we use human rights-related sanctions. They include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Libya, Mali, South Sudan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. The Bill will rightly continue this, allowing the UK to continue to implement existing sanctions regimes and to impose new sanctions in the future. I reiterate my point that paragraphs (f) and (h) of clause 1(2) will empower the Government to implement sanctions on human rights grounds. These are broad powers that will provide maximum flexibility and allow us to include all sorts of abuses, including but not only gross human rights abuses.
I should like to refer to the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about humanitarian access and freedoms. This is an important point. The Government recognise the concerns expressed in the House about the humanitarian impact of sanctions, and we understand the need for engagement with non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian actors. We fully support the work of NGOs operating in difficult areas, and we recognise that they are important partners in delivering the UK’s objectives in challenging environments. I want to reassure the House that the Government have been actively engaging with NGOs. As part of the consultation for the Bill, we held a roundtable to understand their concerns. Within the past couple of months, we have also met organisations involved in humanitarian, development and peace-building work.
The Bill provides a number of tools that will enable the Government to tailor each regime to help to meet the needs of NGOs. In particular, it will enable the Government to make exemptions for humanitarian reasons and to issue licences for legitimate activity. EU case law currently limits our ability to issue general licences, but the Bill will provide greater flexibility by allowing us to do so in circumstances where Ministers judge it appropriate. It will also help to prevent the exploitation of NGOs by those seeking to circumvent sanctions. We have committed to remain engaged with the humanitarian sector and to provide it with high-quality guidance on the implementation and enforcement of individual regimes. We will continue to work with NGOs and other stakeholders to develop the best possible system.
Beneficial ownership has been at the heart of tonight’s debate. We will no doubt discuss it in Committee and perhaps on Report. It is important to recognise that the UK is the only member of the G20 with a public register of company beneficial ownership. We welcome the fact that the EU is catching up with us, but, when it does, public registers of beneficial ownership will still not be a global standard. The non-EU members of the G20 will still not have them.
We hope to work with the Financial Action Task Force and other partners to establish registers of beneficial ownership as a global standard, the effect of which will be not to allow companies or people simply to shift from one regime to another and hide their assets somewhere else. In the meantime, we should remember that the overseas territories are well ahead of most jurisdictions, including many G20 partners, in developing private registers.
In the exchange of notes in 2016, the overseas territories with significant financial centres each committed to holding central or equivalent registers of company beneficial ownership and to making information held on those registers available to UK law enforcement and tax authorities. Those arrangements are almost complete, with some of the territories understandably slightly delayed by last year’s devastating hurricanes.
Moreover, the overseas territories are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically elected Governments. The UK respects the constitutional relationship with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It is entirely right to work consensually with them, rather than to impose legislation. The UK has only legislated directly without the overseas territories’ consent in the most exceptional of circumstances, such as on capital punishment.
We do not generally legislate for the overseas territories, and to do so would have the effect of overruling their own legislatures and could be interpreted as disenfranchising the citizens who voted for them. The overseas territories have taken great steps forward in this area, further indeed than many other jurisdictions, and I urge the House to appreciate the importance of not jeopardising what has been agreed with them.
Until we leave the European Union, the United Kingdom will continue to exercise all the rights and obligations of membership, including with respect to common foreign and security policy, sanctions and anti-money laundering. After we leave, this Government intend to continue working closely with our European neighbours to ensure our collective peace and security. Sanctions and anti-money laundering regulations will continue to be a powerful tool in that effort.
Through this Bill, the Government intend to ensure that these important foreign policy instruments continue to be fully available for the United Kingdom to use wherever it is deemed appropriate so to do. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

SANCTIONS AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]:

COMMITTAL

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

PROCEEDINGS IN PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEE

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6 March.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

PROCEEDINGS ON CONSIDERATION AND UP TO AND INCLUDING THIRD READING

4. Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

OTHER PROCEEDINGS

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

SANCTIONS AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Treasury; and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

SANCTIONS AND ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING BILL [LORDS] (WAYS AND MEANS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the imposition, by regulations under the Act, of charges by persons exercising functions under the regulations in connection with the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering or terrorist financing or the combating of threats to the integrity of the international financial system; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 6 to 17 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Legal Services

That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Appeals from Licensing Authority Decisions)(General Council of the Bar) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 December 2017, be approved.
That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (General Council of the Bar) (Modification of Functions) Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 December 2017, be approved.

Representation of the People

That the draft Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2017, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2017, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 19 December 2017, be approved.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
That the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 11 January, be approved.

Soft Drinks Industry Levy

That the draft Soft Drinks Industry Levy (Enforcement) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Seafarers (Insolvency, Collective Redundancies and Information and Consultation Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018, which was laid before this House on 19 January, be approved.

Digital Economy

That the draft Proposal for Designation of an Age-Verification Regulator, which was laid before this House on 14 December 2017, be approved.—(Wendy Morton.)
Question agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS ETC. (DEPARTMENTAL NOMENCLATURE)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.9(6)),
That the following Orders, changes to Standing Orders and amendments to Resolutions of the House be made:
A: Select Committees Related to Government Departments
(1) That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended in the appropriate places in the Table in paragraph (2) as follows:
(i) by inserting “Housing,” before “Communities and Local Government” in the first column, and by leaving out “Department for” and inserting “Ministry of Housing,” in the second column, and
(ii) by inserting “and Social Care” after “Health” in each place it occurs.
B. European Committees
(2) That the Table in paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 119 (European Committees) be amended as follows:
(i) in respect of European Committee A, by inserting “Housing,” before “Communities and Local Government”, and
(ii) in respect of European Committee C, by inserting “and Social Care” after “Health”.
C: Planning: National Policy Statements
(3) That paragraph (7)(a)(i) of Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended by inserting “Housing,” before “Communities and Local Government”
(4) That paragraph (2)(a) of Standing Order No. 152H (Planning: national policy statements) be amended by inserting by inserting “Housing,” before “Communities and Local Government”
D: Liaison Committee
(5) That the Resolution of the House of 6 November 2017 (Liaison Committee: membership) be amended, by inserting “Housing,” before “Communities and Local Government”, and by inserting “and Social Care” after “Health”.
E: Related Provisions
(6) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees relating to the Communities and Local Government Committee done before the passage of the Order this day (Standing Orders etc. (Departmental Nomenclature) (Select Committees related to Government Departments)) shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
(7) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees relating to the Health Committee done before the passage of the Order this day (Standing Orders etc. (Departmental Nomenclature) (Select Committees related to Government Departments)) shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Health and Social Care Committee.
(8) That all proceedings of the House and of its select committees relating to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee done before the passage of the Order of 12 September 2017 (Standing Orders etc. (Departmental Nomenclature) (Digital, Culture, Media and Sport) (Select Committees related to Government Departments)) shall be read and have effect as if they had been done in relation to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—(Wendy Morton.)
Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

John Bercow: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 19 to 24 together.
Ordered,

Foreign Affairs Committee

That Ms Nusrat Ghani and Nadhim Zahawi be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Priti Patel and Mr Bob Seely be added.

Health and Social Care Committee

That Dr Caroline Johnson and Maggie Throup be discharged from the Health and Social Care Committee and Derek Thomas and Martin Vickers be added.

Home Affairs Committee

That Will Quince be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Kirstene Hair be added.

Committee of Public Accounts

That Heidi Allen and Nigel Mills be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Anne Marie Morris and Lee Rowley be added.

Treasury Committee

That Kit Malthouse be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr Simon Clarke be added.

Work and Pensions Committee

That Chris Green be discharged from the Work and Pensions Committee and Nigel Mills be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)

John Bercow: Order. We will come in a moment to the petition to be presented by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), so I will repeat the point that I ordinarily make: if, unaccountably, there are Members who do not wish to listen to the presentation of this petition, I hope they will leave the Chamber quickly and quietly, so that the rest of us can enjoy the mellifluous tones of the hon. Lady.

PETITION - PROVISION OF LGBT INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

Emma Hardy: I rise to present this petition relating to LGBT sex and relationship education. Sadly, for everybody in Hull and elsewhere in the country, the Hull equalities campaigner Colin Livett died over the weekend. He wrote this petition to ensure that no child would be left behind just because they are LGBT or struggling with their sexuality or gender identity, and it is in tribute to him that I present this today.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that LGBT inclusive SRE is to be granted mandatory status in all schools in order that future generations leave schools informed on such matters of equality and personal safety having been educated correctly about sexual relations.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that there are benefits of inclusive teaching of Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) to ensure that no child is left in ignorance; further that the Government should pledge that the updated SRE guidelines for mandatory SRE in all schools will be LGBT inclusive, which it is yet to do; and further that recent agreements made by the Government with a party which is not sympathetic to LGBT inclusive SRE following the general election on June 8th 2017, causes concern that education that is appropriate and LGBT inclusive, could be put at risk.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that LGBT inclusive SRE is to be granted mandatory status in all schools in order that future generations leave schools informed on such matters of equality and personal safety having been educated correctly about sexual relations.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002103]

PETITION - ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND CLOSURE

Martyn Day: I rise to present a petition relating to the damaging and misguided proposals to close the RBS branch in Linlithgow.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Linlithgow East Falkirk,
Declares that proposed closure of Linlithgow branch of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland will have a detrimental effect on local community and the local economy.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Royal Bank of Scotland to take into account the concerns of petitioners and take whatever steps they can to halt the planned closure of this branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002111]

ARTS COUNCIL ENGLAND FUNDING: COALFIELD COMMUNITIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Wendy Morton.)

John Mann: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for generously granting this debate. I rise to congratulate Arts Council England on its incredible deftness and artistic creativity in presenting to the world a list of the coalfield communities that it funds that is so expansive as to defy most critical logic. In attempting to demonstrate that the paltry amounts of money it spends in English coalfield communities is slightly larger, the Arts Council has through its vivid imagination incorporated into the English coalfields the centre of Newcastle, the docklands of Salford and the entirety of Huddersfield.
Were this 200 years ago, the latter would have some credibility, but one can see from the detail of where miners are under the miners’ pension scheme, and much more publicly through Hansard due to repeated questions about the number of former miners who have claimed compensation under the huge industrial injury compensation scheme, the precise number of retired miners —for they are what we are talking about when we discuss former coalfield communities—in each constituency in the United Kingdom. It is safe to say that Huddersfield, central Newcastle and the Salford docks are rather low down the pecking order. Indeed, they are virtually invisible.
However, one can see on the public record, which the Arts Council should read to clarify its statistics, where the former coalfield communities are. I have a list of some of them and the amounts of money generously given by the Arts Council in the past year: Nuneaton—zero; North Warwickshire—zero; Washington and Sunderland West—zero; Amber Valley— zero; Erewash— zero; Rother Valley—zero; Wentworth—zero; Blyth Valley—zero; Gedling—zero; Sedgefield—zero; Sheffield South East—zero; Cannock Chase—zero; Makerfield—zero; Easington —zero; Leigh—zero; Doncaster North—zero; Barnsley East—zero; Newcastle North—zero; Blaydon—zero; Sherwood—zero; Staffordshire Moorlands—zero; North West Durham—zero; Stoke-on-Trent North—zero; Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford—zero; Hemsworth —zero; Houghton and Sunderland South—zero; Ashfield —zero; Mansfield—zero; North West Leicestershire—zero; Bolsover—zero; Bassetlaw—zero. The figures were last put in the public domain by my good self in a parliamentary question in 2007, when the situation was slightly better—five had received tiny amounts of money. However, 85% received nothing in 2007, nothing since and nothing today. We are therefore talking about national funding by the Arts Council, in most coalfield communities, of zero.
Let us compare that, at random, with the borough of Islington. There, the Arts Council funded 26 projects in the last year, 14 of them at more than £1 million—up from 2007. In Bermondsey, 13 projects were funded—up from 2007. In Bethnal Green and Bow, the figure is 30 projects—up from 2007. In Cities of London and Westminster, 62 projects were funded in the past year, of which 35 received more than £500,000—up from 2007. In Hackney, North and South, 32 projects were funded, and in Holborn and St Pancras the figure was 26. To demonstrate that this is not entirely a London bias,  Manchester Central received funding for 30 projects, Brighton Pavilion had 13 projects funded and the figure for Birmingham, Ladywood was 29. All those areas benefit more than all the coalfield communities in England combined every single year.
This debate is about arts funding, but if we look at sports funding, the picture is not quite as bad. London has merely four times as much as the entirety of the coalfield communities.
All of that prompts the question of whether this is fair or reasonable. Should my constituents not have the same access to the arts as everybody else? If someone takes a bus from my constituency, it is not like taking a city centre bus or the underground in London. It is not possible to get from parts of my constituency to the city of Nottingham and back in a day by public transport. The slightly more generous funding for the city of Nottingham, which was explained to me as benefiting my constituents, has minimal benefit, particularly for young people.
I am particularly concerned about young people. You, Mr Speaker, have always been rightly and appropriately generous in welcoming young people from my constituency to Speaker’s House. For them, it is not just a great honour; it opens their eyes and opens doors to the kind of places they do not tend to go into. You fully recognise that, Mr Speaker, as did your predecessor. Why cannot the Arts Council gets its head around the fact that young people in my area do not have such opportunities?
We are talking about scores of constituencies around the country. One that I have excluded—Bishop Auckland—has one project at the moment, so it is doing very well. However, that is hardly an example of fairness. Indeed, the Bishop Auckland project demonstrates a further problem: when arts funding goes in, it tends to go into the great, historic buildings and museums. So although Bowes in Bishop Auckland is a great place and a great museum, it is not in the coalfields. Technically, it can be put down as a “coalfield contribution”, and it is a very valid contribution, but it is not a coalfield contribution at all. Even the paltry amounts are skewed by the Arts Council—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Wendy Morton.)

Helen Goodman: rose—

Jim Shannon: rose—

John Mann: I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Helen Goodman: My hon. Friend is making a passionate case. I think the bias is for London and against the regions. Not so long ago, the whole of Lincolnshire was given 25p per person. What can be done with 25p per person? That is absurd. At the same time, London was getting 14 times as much as the average across the rest of the nation.

John Mann: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I merely say that when it comes to the English coalfields, we are talking about zero, zero, zero, zero, year after year. So the young people are reliant on the schools, which do their best, but we all know that schools funding has been tight. Schools funding for the arts has  been tight for successive Governments—this goes back to the Labour Government as well. It has always been tight, but it has got tighter. Where someone wants to be creative in music in Bassetlaw, there is no facility available in the community for them. Where someone wants to go into the world of theatre, they find that no youth drama is being funded by the national Arts Council. The amounts of money that are there ought to be spread to some extent, to allow us to do things.
When we bid for money, the way the Arts Council works is that it says, “We’ll give you a consultant. One of our consultants.” That consultant will advise the Arts Council on what should be done. It is a closed shop within the arts world, where they give someone they know the contract to bid for money from themselves and none of it gets into the former coalfield communities. It is a scandal. The Arts Council needs to have the integrity to open up opportunities to give us the chance to demonstrate that where we do not have the arts infrastructure to bid for money, we can do it in a different way, with its assistance, without needing that infrastructure. Where people have the time, wisdom, inclination and skills, coming from the arts world, I do not begrudge them their brilliant ideas, inventiveness and claims in respect of facilities that already exist. If those facilities were in my constituency, I would be proposing the same. But is this fair on the national level? What about not just the education but the health, not least the mental health, of young people and the importance of the arts to them?

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his contribution. He has just mentioned the very issue that I want to bring to his attention—the health institutions. Almost 50% of the nation’s healthcare institutions provide arts programming for patients, families and staff because of the health benefits of the arts to their patients. Surely if they can do it, we can see clearly the benefits that would be brought to the coalfield communities.

John Mann: It would bring a huge benefit. We are talking about small amounts of money to give us a chance with the few projects we ever put forward, which get knocked back repeatedly, as the evidence demonstrates. That requires a change of mindset in the arts world and in Arts Council England, which must say to communities—not only mine, but the many others from all corners of England—“You have the right to benefit from the arts. You have the right and we are going to help you. We are going to get in there. We are going to provide that little bit of funding that would make such a big difference.” I predict, Mr Speaker, that if the young people in my constituency were given that opportunity—you, Sir, are witness to this—we would see that they are as inventive, creative and brilliant as any other set of young people in the country, but they do not end up in the arts world because their skills remain hidden. It is hardly a surprise that the talent shows uncover so many people from areas like mine.
We once had in the miners’ welfares and institutes many educational, artistic and sporting structures, based on the coalmining industries. That gave an entire set of generations opportunities. Over the past 30 years, those facilities have gently crumbled away in most places. The miners are not there and the employer is not there to provide the time, facilities and, indeed, money that there used to be. The void needs to be filled.
Will the Minister meet representatives from the Arts Council to take them through these incredible figures and challenge them? I am more than happy to go with him. The big-picture issue is not whether it is my constituency or one of the many others that actually benefits. I shall of course fight strongly for my area, but if it was only my area that was not benefiting, one could see that we were doing something wrong. When so many scores of constituencies get no national funding whatsoever from the Arts Council, that shows that the system is wrong.
I say in a non-partisan way—the Minister will note that this affects constituencies represented by Members from different parties—that it is long overdue that this issue is addressed. The Arts Council is currently reviewing its priorities; here is a chance to direct a modicum of resource to the former coalfields to give our kids a proper artistic chance.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this interesting and important debate. I believe that he and I are in agreement about the vital role that the arts can and do play in binding local communities together and about the sense of pride—and enthusiasm, for that matter—that engagement with the arts can bring to individuals and to places; we are certainly in agreement about that. The Government truly believe in and recognise the power of the arts to transform places and, indeed, people’s lives. I passionately believe that and know it to be true.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Arts Council England rightly operates at arm’s length from the Government. In those circumstances, it would be wrong for a Minister of the Crown to intervene in, or comment too specifically on, individual funding cases. I shall therefore begin by discussing the Arts Council’s role and the support that it provides at a broader level.
The Arts Council’s mission is “Great art and culture for everyone”, which it seeks to achieve through advocacy and investment in line with its 10-year plan. It works to make the arts, and the wider culture of museums and libraries, an integral part of everyday public life, accessible to all and understood as essential to the national economy and the health and happiness of society.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point, the Arts Council has worked very hard in recent years to ensure that investment outside London has increased as a percentage and in cash terms. He will be pleased to hear that last year some 70% of Arts Council funding was awarded outside London. Between 2018 and 2022, an additional £170 million will be invested outside London. The Arts Council is also on target to spend 75% of national lottery money outside London by April this year—that is expected in the next couple of months.
The Arts Council recognises that more can be done to ensure that more people have access to great art and culture. Its flagship Creative People and Places programme, for example, was set up to focus on the least-engaged parts of England. Current investment in that programme is more than £53 million. The scheme allows local people to have a say in the art that they want locally.  It is about taking art and culture to the people. Through that programme alone, the Arts Council has reached 1,450,000 people who would not ordinarily participate in art and culture.
There are some great examples of Creative People and Places schemes working in former coalfield areas, such as St Helens in the north-west, where Heart of Glass was set up in 2015. The evidence shows that that has made a difference. Heart of Glass and St Helens library service will join the Arts Council’s national portfolio of organisations for the first time in 2018 to 2022—congratulations to them for that achievement.

Helen Goodman: The statistics the Minister has given would be reasonable if between a quarter and a third of the British population lived in London, but they do not. Moreover, although the Arts Council is at arm’s length, the Minister has under his own control a significant budget that he could use if he wished to make up for the deficiencies in Arts Council distribution.

Michael Ellis: The fact of the matter is that the Arts Council has made significant progress, as I have outlined, in delineating moneys outside the London area. It is also important that my Department and I access all people throughout England. Arts Council England is focused on that too.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate Sue Williamson, who joins the Arts Council as director of libraries from St Helens library service, which I referred to a moment ago. She most recently delivered its award-winning cultural hubs and arts in libraries programme, and oversaw the successful application to the Arts Council’s national portfolio.
Another Arts Council-funded scheme is First Art, which is a collective of four cultural and community organisations working within former coalfields in north-east Derbyshire and north-east Nottinghamshire. It aims to bring inspiring cultural experiences within reach of everyone in Ashfield, Bolsover, Mansfield and north-east Derbyshire over the next two years. It is a very exciting programme.
The hon. Member for Bassetlaw raised the issue of funding for coalfield communities at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago, when he alleged an inequality of funding by comparing funding for coalfield communities with funding in the London Borough of Islington, which he mentioned again this evening. I am happy to correct that assertion on the record. Having read his letter to me following Prime Minister’s questions, I see that his figures are based on the Arts Council’s national portfolio funding only, which led to the conclusion of a discrepancy in funding. In actual fact, although the national portfolio organisation funding is an incredibly important part of the Arts Council’s work—it provides regular funding over a set period to some of England’s most vital cultural institutions—it is by no means the only form of funding it distributes. The Arts Council has established various funding streams to tackle different issues across the nation. Many of those funding streams are heavily focused on supporting areas outside London. Some 80% to 90% of the funding for the Ambition for Excellence scheme, which supports talent, leadership and ambition, will be spent outside London. Recent research showed that 91% of touring activity funded by  the Arts Council strategic touring fund was spent outside London. Some £35 million will be invested in the scheme between 2015 and 2018.

John Mann: I fear that the Minister is not quite getting it. Yes, touring people come through the wealthy villages in my constituency—I live in one—and good people like me pay good money to see these productions. But that is not in the former mining communities. In most of the former mining communities, there is zero going on. The Arts Council could not even manage to agree to fund an artistic director in my constituency and others for the 400th anniversary of the Mayflower pilgrims in 2020. We are getting zero into the coalfield areas. Let us not confuse constituency and coalfield area, as I fear the Minister is being hoodwinked into doing by the Arts Council.

Michael Ellis: No, I certainly would not wish to conflate any of those issues. As I have already delineated, the fact is that there are several examples of coalfield areas that have benefited from Arts Council funding.
As I was saying, £35 million will be invested in the strategic touring fund between 2015 and 2018. The Arts Council is continuing to work hard to create a fairer balance to its funding outside of London. It is no part of my suggestion that there is not more that needs to be done; of course there is. This is something to which the Government are fully committed. I consider that the Arts Council is doing a very good job, and Sir Nicholas Serota is doing very well. I understand that there are currently no national portfolio organisations in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, although I am sure that the Arts Council would be willing to discuss how that could be addressed in future. I know that, as he loves the arts and supports the priority that culture should and does have in our society, he will want to engage and be willing to discuss how the situation can be addressed.
I emphasise that there is investment through the national lottery grants for the arts scheme, most recently awarded to the Harley Gallery and the artist Anthony Cropper. The hon. Gentleman’s constituency has seen an increase in funding of 269% taking into account all Arts Council funding, when comparing data for 2012-13 with the current financial year.

John Mann: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Ellis: May I just make a wider point?
In many cases, the perceived lack of funding in certain areas is due to the limited number of applications for funding that the Arts Council receives. This is the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, where the Arts Council has only received 17 applications through its grants for the arts programme since 2014.

John Mann: That rather sums up the problem across every coalfield community. Of course, there is the Harley Gallery. Prince Charles has been there on several occasions, which is not surprising given that he is directly related to the family who own the estate. It is a great investment. People come to the Harley Gallery from all over the  world. If we could get people to go there from my constituency as well, it would be even better. But let us not confuse that kind of high-end art work—as important and valuable as it is to the nation—to working in coalfield communities.

Michael Ellis: I want to do everything I can to support all parts of society to access all forms of art. The Harley Gallery is doing wonderful work, and it is open to all. I know that the hon. Gentleman will join me in encouraging people to visit that gallery and any other galleries nearby that people wish to visit.
The Arts Council recognises the need to increase levels of ambition and interest at the local level. This, of course, cannot be done in isolation. Partnerships are vital. They often extend beyond culture and tourism to include businesses, the local authority in a given area, schools and higher education establishments. In places where that co-operation exists, great things can happen. I know that, as a supporter of the arts, the hon. Gentleman will be a leader in Bassetlaw in working to make these things happen. Clearly, things do not change overnight. It is important that this House devotes time to discussion of the arts, given their importance to so many people in our country.
I again congratulate the hon. Gentleman on enabling this discussion to take place.

Helen Goodman: Before the Minister concludes, we know what the problem is, and we know it is difficult, but we want to know what he is going to do about it.

Michael Ellis: Well, this Minister is deeply supportive of our arts, our culture, our galleries and our museums—our entire sector. This Minister is going to give every ounce of support to ensuring that we support the Arts Council and other arm’s length bodies in the important work that they are doing to make sure that the widest section of society has access to the arts, crucial as we know that to be in broadening the horizons and vistas that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw has spoken of. As I have said, there is work to be done, but it is wrong, in my submission, to characterise the Arts Council in the way that it has been characterised, because it is working very hard on this, and 75% of its funding is now outside of London.
As we all know, arts and culture help to remind us of where we come from. They bring incredible stories to life and help us to step into someone else’s shoes and see the world through their eyes. This country is a world leader in culture and the arts and the Government are committed to supporting that. By continuing to inspire people through the arts, we can continue to create the practitioners of the future. With the leadership—the good leadership—of the Arts Council, the House can see that this Government are paving the way for a bright cultural future right across the nation.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.